The ‘Head of Household’. A Long Normative History of a Statistical Category in the U.K.

Kerstin Brückweh

Abstract


The household forms an important category in social science research. It is used to collect data, to classify it and to represent the results. However, what seems to be a simple listing of facts becomes less clear when a basic question is raised: What is a household? Is it a family living under one roof? Is a roof limited to a house, or does a flat already constitute a household? Do members of a household have to be officially related, meaning married, adopted etc., or even related by blood? And how do households and definitions of households differ over time and space? Some definitions like the United Nations’s dwelling concept, for example, sound pragmatic with little regard to the social relationships of the actual human beings living in a household. However, there are indeed power relations within a household (e.g. between parents and children). Social scientists also observed these actual everyday asymmetries and therefore constructed a hierarchy in social classifications when they placed the household in a specific class according to the ›Head of Household‹ or the ›Household Reference Person‹, the ›Chief Wage Earner‹, the ›Householder‹ etc. The different designations of the reference person indicate that it is not an easy task to name this person or to define this person without a normative bias. By taking the example of Great Britain, this article demonstrates that the definition of the ›Head of Household‹ was a normative category rather than a descriptive one, meaning that it was less able to facilitate analysis of social reality and that it fortified a normative view with the help of statistics. While feminists and other historical actors in different states, for example the U.S., already criticised the normative bias of the definition in the 1960s and 1970s, a different question seems to be of equal or even greater importance to the historian: How, when and why did different nations and professions decide to drop the normative in favour of a descriptive definition of the ›Head of Household‹? This leads to a more general question: How did administrators, statisticians and other survey researchers deal with the aim of longterm stability of statistical categories for the sake of comparability, e.g. in a national census, on the one hand, and with adaption to societal change on the other hand? In taking the example of the United Kingdom, the following story combines aspects of a history of knowledge with administrative history.


<h4>About the Author</h4>

Kerstin Brückweh studied history at the University of Bielefeld and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. Her main field of interest are the nineteenth and twentieth cen- turies. She received an M.A. for a study of the history of medicine and medical ethics in the USA and wrote a Ph.D. thesis on the history of violence in Germany, which was published in 2006 as "Mordlust. Serienmorde, Gewalt und Emotionen im 20. Jahrhundert". Afterwards she turned to the history of knowledge with a study written at the German Historical Institute London, accepted as a Habilitation at the Eberhard Karls University Tübingen und published as “Menschen zählen. Wissensproduktion durch britische Volkszählungen und Umfragen vom 19. Jahrhundert bis ins digitale Zeitalter” in 2015. At the Centre for Contemporary History in Potsdam, she now leads a research group on the long history of “1989”, looking at regime change and everyday life in Eastern Germany.  



Schlagworte


Geschichte; Verwaltung; Verwaltungsgeschichte; History; Administration; History of Administration; Staat; Gender; Social Studies; Sozialgeschichte;

Literaturhinweise


Acker, Joan, »Women and Social Stratification. A Case of Intellectual Sexism«, in: American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973), p. 936–945.

Allen, Sheila, »Gender Inequality and Class Formation«, in: Anthony Giddens, Gavin Mackenzie (Eds.), Social Class and the Division of Labour, Cambridge 1982, p. 137–147.

Anderson, Margo J., The American Census. A Social History, New Haven, London 1988.

Atkinson, Jean, A Handbook for Interviewers. A Manual for Government Social Survey Interviewing Staff, Describing Practice and Procedures on Structured Interviewing, London 21971.

Becker, Peter (Ed.), Sprachvollzug im Amt. Kommunikation und Verwaltung im Europa des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Bielefeld 2011.

— /Clark, William (Eds.), Little Tools of Knowledge. Historical Essays on Academic and Bureaucratic Practices, Ann Arbor 2001.

— , »Überlegungen zu einer Kulturgeschichte der Verwaltung«, in: Jahrbuch für europäische Verwaltungsgeschichte 15 (2003), p. 311–336.

— , »Formulare als >Fließband< der Verwaltung? Zur Rationalisierung und Standardisierung von Kommunikationsbeziehungen«, in: Peter Collin, Klaus-Gert Lutterbeck (Eds.), Eine intelligente Maschine? Handlungsorientierungen moderner Verwaltung (19./20. Jahrhundert), Baden-Baden 2009, p. 281–298.

Berger, Peter L./Luckmann, Thomas, Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie, Frankfurt am Main 1997.

Blythe, Ian, The Making of an Industry. The Market Research Society 1946–1986. A History of Growing Achievement, London 1988.

Brückweh, Kerstin, Menschen zählen. Wissensproduktion durch britische Volkszählungen und Umfragen vom 19. Jahrhundert bis ins digitale Zeitalter, Berlin, Boston 2015, p. 27–29.

— , »Das Eigenleben der Methoden. Eine Wissensgeschichte britischer Konsumentenklassifikationen im 20. Jahrhundert«, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 42 (2016), p. 86–112.

Burke, Peter, What is the History of Knowledge, (ebook), Cambridge, Malden, MA 2016.

Cooper, Andrew, »Sex, Gender and Society«, in: Ivan Reid, Eileen Wormald (Eds.), Sex Differences in Britain, London 1982, $$$page numbers$$$;

Crompton, Rosemary, Class and Stratification. An Introduction to Current Debates, Cambridge 1993.

— /Harris, Fiona, »A Reply to Hakim«, in: The British Journal of Sociology 49 (1998), p. 144–149.

Curtis, Bruce, The Politics of Population. State Formation, Statistics and the Census of Canada. 1840-1875, Toronto 2001.

Delphy, Christine, »Women in Stratification Studies«, in: Helen Roberts (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research, London 1981, p. 114–128.

Dex, Shirley, »Goldthorpe on Class and Gender. The Case against«, in: Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, Sohan Modgil (Eds.), John H. Goldthorpe. Consensus and Controversy, London, New York 1990, p. 135–152.

Downham, John, »How Did the MRS Journal Start?«, in: International Journal of Market Research 50 (2008), p. 7–9.

Eichler, Margrit, The Double Standard. A Feminist Critique of Feminist Social Science, London 1980.

Erikson, Robert, »Social Class of Men, Women and Families«, in: Sociology 18 (1984), p. 500–514.

Experian, Mosaic United Kingdom, The Consumer Classification of the United Kingdom, Nottingham 2009.

Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings. 1972-1977, Brighton 1980.

Geppert, Alexander C. T./Jensen, Uffa/Weinhold, Jörn, »Verräumlichung. Kommunikative Praktiken in historischer Perspektive. 1840-1930«, in: Idem (Eds.), Ortsgespräche. Raum und Kommunikation im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Bielefeld 2005, p. 15–49.

Goldthorpe, John H., »Women and Class Analysis. In Defence of the Conventional View«, in: Sociology 17 (1983), p. 465–488.

— , »Women and Class Analysis. A Reply to the Replies«, in: Sociology 18 (1984), p. 491–499.

Groves, Robert M., »Three Eras of Survey Research«, in: Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (2011), p. 861–871.

Hakim, Catherine, »Developing a Sociology for the Twenty-first Century. Preference Theory«, in: The British Journal of Sociology 49 (1998), p. 137–143.

Halsey, Albert H., A History of Sociology in Britain. Science, Literature, and Society, Oxford 2004.

Hannam, June, »Women’s History, Feminist History«, in: Making History. The Changing Face of the Profession in Britain, http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/womens_history.html (Date: 07.06.2016).

Haraway, Donna, »Situated Knowledges. The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective«, in: Feminist Studies 14 (1988), p. 575–599.

Harris, Muriel, A Handbook for Interviewers, London 1950.

Heath, Anthony/Britten, Nicky, »Women’s Jobs Do Make a Difference. A Reply to Goldthorpe«, in: Sociology 18 (1984), p. 475–490;

Higgs, Edward, »Women, Occupations and Work in the Nineteenth-century Censuses«, in: History Workshop Journal 23 (1987), p. 59–80.

— , The Information State in England. The Central Collection of Information on Citizens. 1500-2000, Basingstoke 2003.

Hoinville, Gerald/Jowell, Roger, Survey Research Practice, London 1982 [1978].

Igo, Sarah E., »Hearing the Masses. The Modern Science of Opinion in the United States«, in: Kerstin Brückweh, et al. (Eds.), Engineering Society. The Role of the Human and Social Sciences in Modern Societies. 1880-1980, Basingstoke 2012, p. 215–233.

Knöbl, Wolfgang, »Das Problem ›Europa‹. Grenzen und Reichweite sozialtheoretischer Deutungsansprüche im 20. Jahrhundert«, in: Lutz Raphael (Ed.), Theorien und Experimente der Moderne. Europas Gesellschaften im 20. Jahrhundert, Köln 2012, p. 253–286.

Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey – User Guide, in: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/labour-market-statistics/index.html (Date: 06.06.2016).

Labour Force Survey User Guide, vol. 8: Household and Family Data, 2008, in: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/labour-marketstatistics/volume-8---2008.pdf (Date: 06.06.2016).

Landwehr, Achim (Ed.), Geschichte(n) der Wirklichkeit. Beiträge zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte des Wissens, Augsburg 2002.

Latour, Bruno, Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge (MA) 1987.

Liddington, Jill/Crawford, Elizabeth, »›Women Do Not Count, Neither Shall They be Counted‹. Suffrage, Citizenship and the Battle for the 1911 Census«, in: History Workshop Journal 71 (2011), p. 98–127.

Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, New York, London 1936.

Martin, Jean/Barton, Jeremy, »The Effect of Changes in the Definition of the Household Reference Person«, in: Survey Methodology Bulletin 381 (1996), p. 1–8.

McCrossan, Liz, A Handbook for Interviewers. A Manual of Social Survey Practice and Procedures on Structured Interviewing, London 1984.

— , A Handbook for Interviewers. A Manual of Social Survey Practice and Procedures on Structured Interviewing, London 31991 [1984].

Meier, Erhard, »The New NRS Classification Measurements. The Differences Between Chief Income Earner, Head of Household, Housewife and Shopper«, in: Conference Papers, The Market Research Society, 37th Annual Conference, 16–18 March 1994, International Convention Centre, Birmingham 1994, p. 139–145.

Miller, Peter/Rose, Nikolas, Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life, Cambridge 2008.

Monk, Donald, Social Grading on the National Readership Survey, London 41978.

— , Social Grading on the National Readership Survey, London 51985.

Nixon, Sean, »Mrs. Housewife and the Ad Men. Advertising, Market Research, and Mass Consumption in Postwar Britain«, in: Hartmut Berghoff, Phillip Scranton, Uwe Spiekermann (Eds.), The Rise of Marketing and Market Research, New York 2012, p. 193–213.

Oakley, Ann, Subject Women, London 1981.

Platt, Jennifer, »Women in the British Sociological Labour Market 1960-1995«, in: Sociological Research Online 4 (2000) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/4/platt.html (Date: 07.06.2016).

— , »Biographical Journey in Sociology«, in: The British Sociological Association http://www.britsoc.co.uk/what-is-sociology/biographical-journeys.aspx (Date: 07.06.2016).

Porter, Theodore M., »Statistics and Statistical Methods«, in: Idem, Dorothy Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 7: The Modern Social Sciences, Cambridge 2003, p. 238–250.

Presser, Harriet B., »Decapitating the U.S. Census Bureau's ›Head of Household‹. Feminist Mobilization in the 1970s«, in: Feminist Economics 4 (1998), p. 145–158.

Raphael, Lutz, »Ordnungsmuster und Selbstbeschreibungen europäischer Gesellschaften im 20. Jahrhundert«, in: Idem (Ed.), Theorien und Experimente der Moderne. Europas Gesellschaften im 20. Jahrhundert, Köln 2012, p. 9–20.

Redmayne, Paul/Week, Hugh, Market Research, London 1931.

Roseneil, Sasha, »The Coming of Age of Feminist Sociology. Some Issues of Practice and Theory for the Next Twenty Years«, in: The British Journal of Sociology 46 (1995), p. 191–205.

Said, Edward, Orientalism, London 1978.

Sametz, R. M. A./Pleizer, C., »Household Reference Person in the Census of Canada. Some Alternatives and Their Implications«, in: Working Paper 8-2400-519, Ottawa 1980. (Vornamen?)

Samuels, John, »Social Class in the Future«, in: Admap Magazine (July 1988).

Sarasin, Philipp, »Was ist Wissensgeschichte?«, in: Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur 36 (2011), p. 159–172.

Savage, Mike, Identities and Social Change in Britain since the 1940s. The Politics of Method, Oxford 2010.

Speich Chassé, Daniel/Gugerli, David, »Wissensgeschichte. Eine Standortbestimmung«, in: Traverse 1 (2012), p. 85–100.

Stanworth, Michelle, »Women and Class Analysis. A Reply to John Goldthorpe«, in: Sociology 18 (1984), p. 159–170.

Statistics Canada, Census Technical Reports. Families, Catalogue 92-328E, Ottawa 1994.

Szreter, Simon/Sholkamy, Hania/Dharmalingam, Arunachalam, »Contextualizing Categories: Towards a Critical Reflexive Demography«, in: Idem (Eds.), Categories and Contexts. Anthropological and Historical Studies in Critical Demography, Oxford 2004, p. 3–32.

Tredre, Roger, »Women ›Can Be Head of House‹. Sex Bias Removed From Questionnaires«, in: The Independent (March 30, 1993) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/woman-can-be-head-of-house-sex-bias-removed-from-questionnaires-1500789.html (Date: 31.08.2009).

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, Principles and Recommendations for the 1970 Population Censuses, New York 1969.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, New York 2008.

United Nations, Sex-Based Stereotypes, Sex Biases and National Data Systems, ST/ESA/STAT/ 99, June 11, 1980.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population. Subject Reports: Family Composition, Washington DC 1973.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Minutes. Census Advisory Committee of the American Economic Association, December 3, 1976.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Public Use Microdata Samples. United States, Technical Information, Washington DC 1993.

Vogel, Jakob, »Von der Wissenschafts- zur Wissensgeschichte. Für eine Historisierung der ›Wissensgesellschaft‹«, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 30 (2004), p. 639–660.

Watson, Walter B./Barth, Ernest A. T., »Questionable Assumptions in the Theory of Social Stratification«, in: Pacific Sociological Review 7 (1964), p. 10–16.

White, Ian, »No Vote – No Census. An Account of Some of the Events of 1910-1911«, in: Population Trends 142 (2010), p. 1–19.

Wolfe, Alan R. (Ed.), Standardised Questions. A Review for Market Research Executives. A Report by the Research and Development Committee, London 1973-74.

Wolfe, Alan R. (Ed.), Standardised Questions. A Review for Market Research Executives. A Report by the Market Research Society, 1984.

Ziemann, Benjamin, »Die Metaphorik des Sozialen. Soziologische Selbstbeschreibungen westeuropäischer Gesellschaften im 20. Jahrhundert«, in: Lutz Raphael (Ed.), Theorien und Experimente der Moderne. Europas Gesellschaften im 20. Jahrhundert, Köln 2012, p. 193–227.


Refbacks

  • Im Moment gibt es keine Refbacks


Copyright (c) 2016 Kerstin Brückweh