Gender Regimes, Citizen Participation and Rural Restructuring: Volume 13

If we lived in a matriarchy then my name today would not be Ildikó Asztalos Morell, but Ildikó von Hartentahl. My ancestor the pale Maria von Hartentahl would have inherited her parents’ beautiful palace. Instead she had to run away under the darkness of night with her secret lover and the fruit of their love in her belly to avoid the wrath of her family. She would have married the young and charming family “kirurg” (surgeon) and they would have raised many happy children. Instead they fled to the German colonies in Hungary where the “kirurg” slowly turned into an alcoholic, leaving Maria to struggle for the rest of her life against poverty and ill health while trying to bring up her son.

This volume looks at the construction of gendered citizenship in different rural contexts: under different welfare and gender regimes, and different rural and agricultural conditions. Through applying the concepts of the welfare state and gender regimes within rural research, this book contributes to the further development of a comparative theoretical framework for rural gender studies. The importance of integrating rural gender studies into both the mainstreams of rural and feminist research has been emphasized in previous volumes, as has that of developing comparative analytical frameworks (Whatmore, Marsden, & Lowe, 1994, p. 2; Brandth, 2002; Shortall, 2006). The conceptual framework adopted in this volume sets out to meet this challenge by approaching rural gender relations as the meeting point of two core research areas: feminist research into gender regime studies and research on rural transformative processes. Research into gender regimes offers a promising analytical framework for comparing gender relations in diverse rural settings. By formulating gender relations in terms of citizenship rights, this approach elevates the concerns of rural gender relations to broader discourses located at the nation state level (Werbner & Yuval-Davis, 1999; Asztalos Morell, 1999a). The evolution of citizenship rights at the nation state level has created hegemonic frameworks that are able to influence and transform rural gender relations. At the same time, by addressing rural concerns, deriving from the specificity of rural transition processes and gender regimes, the approach also contributes to an elucidation of the complexity of citizenship. In accordance to current debates emphasizing the embedded nature of gender relations with other social forces of differentiation, such as age, class and ethnicity (Walby, 1997; Hobson & Lister, 2002) we aimed to elucidate how gendered citizenship is constituted in the rural context.

In rural gender studies, the dominant forms of agrarian femininity are associated with the traditional role of being the farmer's spouse. According to Brandth (2002), “the discourse of family farming” has represented the hegemonic interpretation of how a typical farm woman lives and works on a farm owned and controlled by her husband, or by members of her husband's extended family. In this context, family farming has been characterised as patriarchal, and the position of farm women subordinated. Whereas the head of the farm is a man, who supervises activities and makes decisions, a woman is responsible for household tasks and routine agricultural activities. Hence, agrarian femininity is conditioned by this gendered division of labour. A farm woman's feminine identity is “tied to her marital contract assuming the identity of a farmer's wife” (Brandth, 2002, p. 184), she has no independent status, thus her occupational identity is weak and hardly recognised. Homemaking also defines farm women “as mothers, tying the definitions of social roles to their biological functions” (Brandth, 2002, p. 184). Thus, a “good farm woman” can be defined as a caring woman in this discourse of family farming.

Post-socialist transition affected rural gender regimes in multiple ways. This chapter focuses on how changes in the distribution of reproductive responsibilities between state, market and family affected the gender division of childcare and household labour in the newly established family farms and, as a result, affected the overall rural gender regime. The gender division of family care and household labour informs the genderedness of social and economic citizenship as it determines men's and women's opportunities to participate in productive work and their relations of economic and social dependency.¹ Local (in this case rural) care regimes are formed not only by the conditions of the hegemonic welfare state, but also by the specific conditions characterizing the locality, the local class, age, ethnicity and gender relations.

The focus in this chapter is on male strategies of coping with unemployment and how these strategies are gendered due to local contextual factors, physical and natural as well as social and cultural. The results of the study show, in the case of men's relations to the labour market and the factors affecting such relations, how the Swedish welfare model and gender contracts work in a rural setting. The interrelation among labour market, household and family is formed according to the local gender contract and is supposed to develop within the frames of national policies, but it is also formed according to hegemonic gender regimes.

Citizenship can be understood as a multi-dimensional status, involving civil, political and social rights and obligations (Yuval Davis, 1997; Lister, 2000). Barbara Hobson (2000) has argued that citizenship is more than the relationship of individuals to the state and includes social relations between individuals too. She points out that social relations lead to a gendered citizenship for women. Their weak economic position in the labour market, their related dependence within the family and lack of representation in the public sphere demonstrate the shortcomings of the liberal concepts of citizenship. Yuval Davis (1997) makes a similar point. Building on Marshall's concept of citizenship as membership of the community, she argues that an analysis of citizenship must include not only a focus on the relationship between the community and the state, but relationships between various collectivities (gender, race, urban/rural locations, etc.) and the community.

The present study investigates the contribution to farm women's empowerment of the ‘young farmers’ programme that has been run by the Greek state since the early 1990s. The ‘young farmers’ programme aims to attract young people (men as well as women) into agriculture in order to renew the aged farming population, providing economic incentives to young people (up to 40 years old) entering farming or to newly established young farmers. The programme is based on Chap. II, article 8, Reg. 1257/99 (and the previous structural regulations) and operates through the Community Support Frameworks implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development and Food. The Ministry also provides a number of supplementary national incentives to young people wishing to become established in agriculture (Law 2520/97).

This chapter focuses on the Swedish agriculture policy from the 1940s to 1960s. Which gender visions were explicitly and implicitly expressed in Swedish agricultural policy discourse during the formative period of the welfare state? In what way were farming women, men and families represented in debates in the Swedish Riksdag (the Parliament) in the parliamentary processes, in bills, proposals and protocols? The point of departure is the concept of family farm, its introduction and the different understandings and discussions it was met with.

In Switzerland farm succession is predominantly patrilinear and controlled by a patriarchal system of succession. A postal survey on farm succession in Switzerland in 2004 elucidated the gender patterns of conditions of succession: the current share of female farm operators stands at 6%. There are no trends towards change. The number of potential female successors ready to take over the farm in the next generation cited by the present operator is again 6% (Rossier & Wyss, 2006). In Switzerland by law women and men are considered equal in all ambits of life. The Act on Gender Equality came into force in 1996. Since then all federal laws that treated women differently from men have been amended.

This chapter focuses on Norwegian farm families by analysing succession patterns across generations and genders in “beanpole” families, i.e. those with several living generations (Brannen, Moss, & Mooney, 2004). The focus is on transfer of property in the case of farm families and its importance for gender relations. Succession here refers to the transfer of farm management control, which may be seen as a continuous, multi-phase process in farm families which begins when the successor is young with gradual assumption of specific responsibilities within the farm business (Symes, 1990). One aim of the chapter is to connect changes in succession praxis in the case of farm families in Norway with the societal changes of three-four generations over the twentieth century. The dynamics of families and households are regarded as key elements of issues such as farm structure (Bengtson, 2001; Bokemeier, 1997; Hareven, 1996; Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003), and farm families offer an interesting case for examining intergenerational relations (Brandth, 2002; Elder, Rudkin, & Conger, 1995; Elder, Robertson, & Rudkin, 1996; Lee & Cassidy, 1981; Melberg, 2003).

Inheritance practice and rules are important keys to understanding the property rights of any rural society. This is especially true for Swedish rural society, traditionally predominated by freeholders. Freeholders, unlike tenants, owned their own farms. This means among other things that their children had the right of inheritance to the landed property.

The governance of rural areas has undergone considerable changes over the past decades. Its scope has broadened to incorporate a range of issues beyond, the once dominant, agricultural interests. At the same time, the process of policy making has changed from one of government to one of governance: from centralist and state-led policy initiatives to policy formation and delivery by a combination of public and private stakeholders with a growing role for the local and regional levels (Winter, 2002; Goodwin, 1998; Storey, 1999; Rhodes, 1996). The European Union has fuelled the emphasis on the regional and local level through its regulations for the delivery of structural funds (Geddes, 2000). The EC's White Paper on European Governance states that working in partnership is one of the leading principles of ‘good governance’ (CEC, 2001). In several countries national governments have embraced multi-sector partnership working, or area-based policy making with the objective of enhancing efficient and inclusive policy delivery.Area based programmes are frequently presented as a means of addressing civic exclusion, both through the inclusive nature of the partnership structure, and through the local nature of the partnership, which is perceived to allow greater access to excluded groups than centralised policy. (Shortall, 2004, p. 113)

In Austria, more than three quarters of the population live in either predominantly or significantly rural areas. With structural adjustment and the integration of agriculture into the rural economy, the concern for the development of rural areas has risen considerably over the past decades. The rural is one area for the articulation and performance of citizenship rights and it constitutes a challenge to assumptions of universalistic citizenship. Commonly, agricultural policy and rural development policy are seen as “gender-neutral” policy fields but the institutionalised patterns of policies for rural areas in Austria likewise tend to favour male perspectives. It is assumed that both men and women can benefit from the effects of programmes, projects and measures. But because of the mostly different living conditions of men and women – differences in the participation in the working sphere, household and care work, mobility, income and qualification – political measures and instruments have different effects on men and women (Hobson, Lewis, & Siim, 2002, p. 12). Compared to men, women have limited opportunities to take an active part in the shaping of agricultural and rural development policy. This can lead to reduced relevance and efficiency of interventions in rural development policy and regional policy (Aufhauser, Herzog, Hinterleitner, Oedl-Wieser, & Reisinger, 2003).

While feminist scholars have highlighted the fact that citizenship should not simply be equated with political representation, they have also emphasized the importance of equity of participation for women in the formal sphere of politics (e.g., Lister, 2003; Staeheli & Kofman, 2004). Thus, the focus of this chapter is on women's representation in mainstream politics and more particularly, within the political arena of local governments in rural and regional areas. The aim of the chapter is to use a feminist theoretical lens to examine gender and representation in rural local governments in Australia. To do so, I draw on data from nineteen interviews with women elected mayors in the Australian state of Queensland. While women continue to be seriously under-represented in the local government sector in rural areas in Australia (see Table 1), women's presence has increased dramatically in the arena of local government in recent years (Sawer, 2001; Pini, Brown, & Ryan, 2004). Nineteen represented a record number of women mayors in the state of Queensland in 2002. Furthermore, all of these women represented constituencies outside the state's capital city of Brisbane. In fact, ten were located in very sparsely populated shires in the western areas of the state (populations ranging from 400 to 7,000 people), two in areas with populations of approximately 15,000, and the remainder in regional towns with populations ranging from 40,000 to 120,000.

The 1990s have been the decade of state decentralisation both in India and in Sweden. Decentralisation of political power has been accompanied by the rhetoric of community participation in natural resource management and rural development initiatives. In light of this, questions about whom or what constitutes the ‘community’ and ‘the local’ take on important connotations. Women and men living in many rural areas (often peripheral in relation to State and other decision-making structures) have sought to ‘redefine’ community citizenship and their relationships with the forests and nature around them. They have tried to play a more active and responsible role in the relationships that they already share by virtue of living together with the forests. Although considerable research has now turned to look at these processes, the gendered nature of these efforts is often subsumed in all-encompassing terms such as community, state or forests. Research with women in two forest communities, one in Sweden and the other in India illustrated that natural resource management is clearly gendered and has tangible effects on the gendering of citizenship in rural areas.

Marshall (1950, p. 10) saw civil citizenship rights as concerning individual liberties, such as freedom of speech, property ownership rights, personal liberties and rights to justice. Women obtained many of these rights only after the acknowledgement of their political citizenship (Walby, 1997, p. 175) and much later than men did. Civil citizenship includes a whole range of issues which cannot be covered in this book. This book focuses on the gender aspects of ownership and land succession. Land succession is interrelated with a series of other civil citizenship rights issues such as access to training and education. While succession is also interrelated with issues of social (social security eligibility), economic (division of labour in the families) and political (political participation and representation) citizenship issues, these relations are to be discussed later.

Seema Arora-Jonsson is assistant professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Her interests are in development theories and practice, natural resource management and feminist participatory methodologies. She is currently engaged in writing a chapter for a book, Doing Science Together: The Politics and Practices of Participatory Research (with Louise Fortmann as editor) in which she as the academic researcher as well as the women in the village that she worked with, reflect on the research process and its contribution to science and the local community. In a project called At Home and Abroad: Gender and Participation in Swedish Environmental Policy Making, she is studying policy making and practice on gender and participation in environmental projects. She has recently started work on a project called Gender and Power in the Swedish Countryside: Women's Agency in Development Projects.