Search results

This paper assesses the implications of existing research on the intra-household economy for current debates about the emergence of new forms of radically democratic intimate relationships in 'late modern' or 'world risk' society. The different ways in which couples organise money are particularly important in evaluating these debates because as Pahl (1989 , 1997 , 1999 ) argues, money can be seen as a tracer for other aspects of a couples' lives together, especially the power relationship between them. One of the groups currently thought to be in the vanguard of shifts to new forms of egalitarian and radically democratic intimate relationships are heterosexual cohabiting couples. So far however, there has been little, if any, research on the ways in which cohabiting couples organise money, particularly in Britain. This paper therefore assesses the possible implications of existing research on the intra-household economy amongst heterosexual couples in the UK and elsewhere, for the ways in which cohabiting couples may possibly be organising household money in Britain today, and what light this sheds on current debates about shifts towards greater equality in new forms of intimate relationships. One of the main questions underlying the discussion concerns the extent to which trends towards individualisation in intimate relationships are coming to be associated with greater sharing and equality in the distribution of financial resources, as Giddens' (1992) thesis would lead us to expect, or whether as Pahl (1999) and others ( Jamieson, 1999 ) have suggested, an increasing proportion of couples may now be coming to use individualised or privatised systems of money management which while enhancing individual control over finances, may nevertheless still be associated with the maintenance and reproduction of some very traditional gender inequalities between male and female partners, albeit in a new and apparently impersonal, 'marketised' form.

This paper attempts to develop a framework for understanding social identities by linking together ideas from two disciplines which are normally pursued separately from each other namely, sociology and psychoanalysis. Drawing on the work of Craib (1989, 1994, 1998a) Bion (1961) and Scheff (1994a) in psychoanalysis and Mann (1986, 1993a, 1995, 1997) in sociology, the main argument is that social identities such as national identity are not just the result of sociological factors such as social classification, boundaries and processes of identification, they also have an important emotional dimension which coexists with but cannot be reduced to the social. In order to understand the persistence and indeed strengthening of nationalism and national identities in the contemporary world, we need to take account not just of changes in the inter-relationships between economics, politics and culture at the global level, but also of the ways in which they may now be coming to inter-relate with the kind of unconscious psychological processes and strong emotions such as love, hate, shame and anger, which occur within groups. The paper begins with a critique of existing sociological approaches to identity followed by an attempt to develop an alternative approach based on the psychoanalytic concept of emotional inter-subjectivity. By means of a case study of British trade unions in the 1980's and 1990's, it then goes on to show how unconscious psychological processes and strong feelings may now be articulating with sociological processes to form a mutually reinforcing loop which is strengthening and reinforcing nationalism in a sociological context in which other aspects of society are globalising. Finally, it is suggested that the reason why sociologists need to take feelings seriously in the contemporary world is that they may now be combining with sociological changes to strengthen and reinforce nationalism and the principle of nationality in situations in which it might be more productive to question it.

This paper addresses criticisms of a number of papers (Vogler and Pahl, 1993, 1994; Vogler, 1994) in which we attempted to explore the relationships between money, power and inequality within marriage. Subsequent criticisms have mainly centred around the concept of power that we used in those papers. It has been suggested that we either lacked a theory of power (Rottman, 1996) or that our conceptualisation of power as control over decision making was too limited (Shove, 1993). I would argue however, that while it was not made explicit in our original papers our findings point towards a more general theory of power in the household, namely to a modified version of Lukes' three dimensional model of power. While we initially conceptualised power as control over decision making (Lukes' first dimension of power) our findings also show the importance of ideological and cultural factors (Lukes' third dimension of power) as both a cause and a consequence of the allocative systems couples use to organise money within the household. More theoretically, I also suggest that discourses about money within the household may be part of, and operate in a similar way to discourses of decision making at the broader political level. It may therefore be possible to conceptualise the different ways of managing money within the household as mini political systems akin to different sorts of democracy at the broader political level, and with similar consequences for gender relations.

The growing body of research on the intra-household economy suggests that in couple households there are significant associations between control over household finances and more general power within the household. However, most earlier research has been based on relatively small samples. Here a major new British data set, produced by the Social Change and Economic Life Initiative, is used to examine the relations between money, power and inequality within marriage. Six different systems of financial allocation are identified. The results suggest that even when couples nominally pool their money, in practice either husband or wife is likely to control the pool. In only one fifth of couples was the pool jointly controlled, but these households were characterised by the highest levels of equality between husband and wife in terms of decision making, experience of deprivation and access to personal spending money. Findings from the study indicate a complex pattern of relationships between household income level, household allocative system and gender. Female control of finances, though it was associated with greater decision-making power for women, did not protect them against financial deprivation; however, male control of finances, especially when it took the form of the housekeeping allowance, did serve to protect the financial interests of men in comparison with women. Gender inequality was least in households with joint control of pooled money and greatest either in low income households or in higher income households with male control of finances.

This paper examines the methods couples use to organise money and the extent to which particular methods involve inequalities between men and women. It uses data on over 1200 households, drawn from the Social Change and Economic Life Initiative, a major British study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. Various systems of allocation are identified and the paper discusses the determinants of these different systems and the extent to which patterns of allocation have changed over time, especially with regard to women's increased participation in the labour market. The results of this research do not support the theory that such changes in participation are leading, deterministically, to greater equality in household financial arrangements. Rather, the gendering of the responsibility for `breadwinning' continues and this has clear effects on both financial arrangements and inequalities within households.

Drawing on British data from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) module on 'Family and Changing Gender Roles', this paper is an exploratory attempt to assess the extent to which newly emerging 'individualised' patterns of money management in intimate relationships, are coming to be associated with shifts towards greater equality between partners, in terms of who has the final say over large expenditure decisions, and the implications this has for overall satisfaction with the relationship and happiness with life in general. Our findings show that while in general, keeping money partly separate was associated with a relatively high level of male control, which was more visible to female respondents than male control in other systems, a minority of (sometimes) higher earning, cohabiting women with partly separate finances, were able to make autonomous decisions about spending, possibly by using their own personal spending money. However, the analysis also indicates that when either men or women made autonomous decisions about spending, both male and female respondents were less satisfied with family life, as well as with life in general, than those who made joint decisions.

Liberal theories of post-industrial society and Marxist theories of the labour process tend to converge in their respective accounts of the place of supervisors in relation to putative changes in the organisation of work. A common conjecture is that supervisors are progressively being denuded of their powers and functions within industry. This paper uses data from a national sample survey of Britain to discuss the substance of the supervisory role in modern capitalist enterprises. The conclusion reached is that direct supervision in the workplace is not obviously in decline. The data also raise issues about the categories of employment status used in official statistics as well as those of the Goldthorpe class schema.

This paper challenges the widely held view that novel and fundamental changes in the structure of social hierarchy have altered the basis of distributional conflict in modern Britain. Reference to nineteenth-century developments shows that sectionalism, egoism and privatism are not peculiar to the present economic recession. It is then argued that commentators on the left and right alike have oversimplified the relationship between the distributional order of societies, on the one hand, and the specific forms taken by distributional conflicts on the other. This means that the implications of the lack of a capitalist Sittlichkeit (morality or moral order) for social integration may be quite different from those commonly drawn in recent studies.

This article deals with certain aspects of British economic decline. After a short historical review of British economic performance, the phenomenon of deindustrialization is examined. Two major economic theories of deindustrialization are discussed alongside empirical evidence of the recent, rapid decline in Britain's manufacturing base and its worsening trade performance in goods and services. The effects of multinational corporations are also briefly examined. In the final section of the article, attention is given to some of the social and political aspects of deindustrialization. In particular, evidence on poverty, unemployment, and living standards in contemporary Britain is discussed in relation to a sociological model that attempts to explain certain apparent paradoxes of British society. This model is an extension of T. H. Marshall's pioneering work on citizenship and social class and serves to highlight both the continuing stabilizing effects of the modern status order and the possibility of further clashes between the competing claims of citizenship and social class.

A discussion of certain aspects of British economic decline. After a short historical review of British economic performance, the phenomenon of deindustrialization is examined. Two major economic theories of deindustrialization are discussed alongside empirical evidence of the recent, rapid decline in GB's manufacturing base & its worsening trade performance in goods & services. The effects of multinational corporations are also briefly examined. Attention is given to some of the social & political aspects of deindustrialization. In particular, evidence on poverty, unemployment, & living standards is discussed in relation to a sociological model that attempts to explain certain apparent paradoxes of British society. This model is an extension of T. H. Marshall's work on citizenship & SC (see SA 13:3/65B6184) & serves to highlight both the continuing stabilizing effects of the modern status order & the possibility of further clashes between the competing claims of citizenship & SC. HA.