Family, farm, and factory: Labor and the family in the transition from protoindustry to factory industry in 19th-century Twente, the Netherlands

Abstract

In this article, sex and class-specific career paths in two 19th-century Dutch communities are investigated. The neighboring communities were both heavily involved in protoindustrial cotton production during the first half of the 19th century, whereas during the second half, one of the communities (Borne) became fully industrialized while the other (Wierden) hardly industrialized, and instead began to develop commercial agriculture. For both of these periods in both communities marriage cohorts were reconstituted, leading to a total of four reconstitutions. Based on data from marriage certificates in both communities, three occupational categories can be distinguished: those involved in agriculture, textiles, and other occupations. For all heads of households in each of these groups—and for their wives, whenever possible—life courses were reconstructed from the following data available in the civil registers: births and deaths of the children (if they died before reaching age 15) and deaths of spouses. A change of occupational category was not uncommon: Over one quarter of all heads of households made such a change at least once in their lifetimes. For women, this proportion was less certain, but clearly, it was not unusual for them to change occupational categories as well. Most changes were from the textiles to the agriculture category. At age 20–25 years, roughly a 40–40–20 division existed between agriculture, textiles, and other occupations; by age 65, that division had become roughly 80–0–20. Almost all men who started their careers in textiles shifted to agriculture over the course of their lives. Changes from agriculture to textiles were rare, whereas men working in the “other occupations” category (mostly small business, handcrafts, and services) hardly ever changed categories. This was true for both communities and both protoindustrial and industrial periods.

Keywords:

• Protoindustrial
• Industrial
• Occupational categories

Notes

1 Some ambiguity in the descriptions of occupations in the civil registers, from which these data are derived, should be noted. The Dutch word landbouwer is translated as “farmer” in the text, indicating someone who held or leased a viable farm and therefore was to a large extent economically independent. However, in Dutch the term landbouwer could apply to anyone whose primary occupation was agriculture, from smallholder to gentleman farmer. In some cases, the indication of a person's occupation in the civil registers was more accurate—dagloner or boerwerker (both being day laborers) or, as in this case, bouwman for smallholder. All were persons whose main activity was agriculture, who may even have had access to some land of their own (either owned or leased), but who did not hold a viable farm (Bieleman, 1987, pp. 128–29). The word arbeider (laborer, worker) is ambiguous; in the context of early 19th-century society, it was considered applicable to lower functions in agriculture, probably day laborers or farmhands. In the later part of the 19th century and parallel to the description arbeider, the term fabriekarbeider (factory worker) appeared in the registers, and thus clearly distinguished agricultural workers from factory workers. This leaves open to interpretation the word landbouwer, which is used in many cases as a general term for occupations in agriculture.

2 The research was carried out by means of a family reconstitution study based on civil registers. In each of the communities of Borne and Wierden, two marriage cohorts were analyzed. The first cohort in each community (1831–1840) was situated in a period of protoindustrial upsurge that lasted until the 1860s; the second cohort (1871–1880) was situated in the early phase of factory industrialization in the region.

3 In this study, infant and child mortality was observed until age 15. The 14 possible registrations were marriage of the couple, eight births, three deaths of the children, and the deaths of the husband and wife.

4 An alternative source would have been population registers, but they have some serious disadvantages for this type of data in general, and for this research in particular. Firstly, population registers are not generally available in the Netherlands before 1850. (What passes for population registers before that date are actually indexes on population censuses, made once and rarely kept up-to-date after their completion.) Secondly, as of 1850, a new set of registers was started every 10 years. The registers were supposed to be updated after every change in a household. This seems to have been done with a certain degree of reliability with respect to vital events and migratory movements, but not with regard to occupations, especially for the earliest decades of their existence. Changing an occupation in the register would have required the person who made the change to come to the registry office to report it, which was not routinely done. There was no incentive to do so. In this respect, civil registers often contain more information described in more detail: At the registration of any vital event, the current occupation of at least the man was registered. Thirdly, in this particular case, because only the population registers of Borne have survived, only records about the second cohort of the Borne population would have been available.

5 The “textiles” category includes men working in textile production, whereas the “other” category includes men with occupations other than agriculture or textiles, and consists mainly of small craftsmen. The “agriculture” category comprised men working in agriculture, a heterogeneous group of not only full-time farmers but also smallholders and day laborers as well as a group of men who were referred to in the civil registers as arbeider (worker). Although it cannot be demonstrated conclusively from the entries on their marriage certificates alone that these arbeiders were occupied in agriculture, nearly all of them mentioned agriculture-related professions in later stages of their careers. It was therefore assumed that they were indeed involved in agriculture in some form or other. This group, still numerous in the first cohort, however, nearly disappeared in the second cohort. These arbeiders were not necessarily equal to the fully proletarianized workers normally encountered in rural or urban proletariats. In all likelihood, many of the arbeiders in Twente to some extent had access to land.

6 For example, it is unclear whether someone who is described as a weaver in one record and as a factory worker in another had indeed changed his occupation. In the second cohort, the majority of factory workers were weavers. The same argument applies to the “agriculture” category. In many cases, the subtle differences between occupations (see Footnote 1) are not clear from the descriptions in the records, and thus do not allow precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the actual occupations of the persons involved.

7 The discrepancies between the totals in are because multiple changes between occupational categories were included in Table 3. For example, a man changing between weaving and agriculture first, and changing to the “other” category later (thus making two changes), is included twice.

8 For the data in Fig. 2, all civil registers (marriage, birth, and death registers) were considered.

9 In 1899, Enschede harbored over 15,000 people. By that time, however, it had usurped parts of the surrounding rural community of Lonneker, which helped increase its population considerably. Around 1890, the urban area of Enschede proper probably had between 9000 and 11,000 inhabitants.

10 In this quotation, “industry” is still to be understood as cottage industry.

11 This value is comparable with that of Shepshed's smallholders, although they were primarily freeholders and not tenants (Levine, 1976, p. 180).

12 The high frequency with which cattle were driven to and from the meadows and wastelands was a consequence of the Twente system of the potstal—a stable in which the manure of the animals was gathered to help in the use of manure.

13 However, some manufacturers held a more liberal view. A. J. Blijdenstein, for example, a manufacturer from Enschede, was of the opinion that “it is not advisable to refuse work to women who find that they have to work in the interest of their families” (Enquête, p. 44).

14 Since so little is known about the occupations of women at marriage in the second cohort, we cannot confirm this from the empirical data.

15 For Switzerland: Braun (1990), passim; Pfister (1996). For the Netherlands: Mastboom (1996), Klep (1973, p. 177). For Belgium: Klep (1981, pp. 299–308), Vandenbroeke (1996), Vanhaute (1992, pp. 123–124, 139–140, and 310–114), Gutmann (1988, pp. 155ff.), Gutmann and Leboutte (1984). For Saxony: Holmes and Quataert (1986). For France: Gullickson (1986), Lehning (1980), Vardi (1993), passim. For Germany: Blackbourn (1993, pp. 70–71), Fehn (1975), Beck (1993, pp. 284–285).