Draft
‘Doing business with gender: the case of business history in
the UK’
Katrina Honeyman
European Business History Association Conference
Barcelona 16-18 September 2004
1
Doing business with gender: the case of British business history in the UK
In many areas of political, social and economic activity the gap between the US and
the UK is wide, but with respect to engendering business history a chasm separates
the two. Business history has from the outset been more precocious in the US; and
progress has continued to be faster there than in GB.1 In the United States lively and
frequent discussion at conferences and on the pages of learned journals testifies to the
intellectually innovative climate of business history, which, in recent years has
explicitly included gendered business history.2 In Britain by contrast and despite
specific pieces of individual research which challenge existing boundaries, and in
spite of awareness that paradigmatic progress is required, there is limited engagement
with broad issues concerning gender and business.3
This paper aims to present an overview of the state of gender and business history in
GB, and to offer suggestions for ways forward. It consists of four stands. Firstly an
assessment of and an explanation for the current situation is offered. This will include
a discussion of both institutional constraints on women’s entrepreneurial or
managerial activities, and the scholarly environment within which a study of the
history of such activity takes place. Secondly it will explore the changing gendered
environment within which business operates; and emphasise the need for business
history to keep pace with such change. The third strand of the paper identifies positive
features of recent business history developments, and explores ways in which these
can be used to engender further the enterprise of business history. Finally it will make
the case for an embedded gendered business history.
2
I Business history in GB
The roots of British business history can be located in economic history, itself a
discipline preferring a concrete, even quantitative base. From its early days as an
independent discipline, the conceptual base of business history was informed by
notions of structure, efficiency, rationality and profitability, and as such attention was
focused on robust, quantifiable elements to the neglect of socio-cultural forces. Above
all it seemed to be a discipline driven by empiricism with theoretical discussions
languishing ‘in the doldrums’ according to Wilson4, and where theoretical work
existed, suggests Rose, it ‘concentrated on efficiency of specific forms of organisation
rather than on the human relationships that underpin them’.5
Reviews of the periodical literature over the last decade, indicate continuity in
perceptions of the nature of discipline, and four main themes can be discerned. Firstly
that British business historians are neither clear nor agreed about what constitutes
their subject.6 Secondly, that they produce eclectic work on diverse subjects, ranging
from narrow empirical case studies to broad and general sweeps. Thirdly the subject
continues to be characterised by methodological variation and interdisciplinarity,
which can indicate ‘strength in depth’7 and the promise of excitement through
diversity8, but can also create a ‘barrier, since it creates different languages and makes
it impossible for historians from different methodological backgrounds to talk to one
another’.9 Generally, however, the ‘endless novelty’ of research in business history
‘suggests an optimistic future for the discipline of business history’.10
3
Amidst all this eclecticism and indeed the continued search for new paradigms11 , it is
surprising how little enthusiasm for gendering business history there has been, a point
taken up by an American reviewer of the British periodical literature. There should
be, argued Blackford, be ‘more of an effort to move in new directions… [especially]
… the role of gender and race… in business development’.12 The discipline may have
moved on, but the ‘mainstream’ or ‘malestream’ has continued to focus on
measurable issues. In recent years renewed enthusiasm for quantification and the
manipulation of data sets has been evident.13 Qualitative aspects are marginalised and
only in isolated pockets has the gendering of British business history made progress.
Possible explanations for this include the deep rooted desire to cling to the concrete,
as well as institutional constraints and perceptions of gender as subversive.
Traditional business history has been gender blind. This may be the result of
longstanding barriers to women’s entrepreneurial and managerial activities, which
creates an impression that the world of business is dominated by men. It may also be
the result of the male dominance of the practice of business history in Britain, as
reflected in a gender analysis of the participants at mainstream business history
conferences.14 However, while this may explain the invisibility of women in business
activity and in the exploration of its history, it does not explain why gender [that is,
the social construction of masculinity and femininity; or the interaction of men and
women] should be ignored. It could be argued that male British business historians
find it easier to consider only what it visible [men] rather than to question why a
potentially important driver of business activity15 is either absent or underrepresented.
This offers further evidence for the notion that the dominant rarely reflect on their
dominance while the oppressed are more inclined to dwell on their oppression.16
4
Women’s historians are accustomed to digging deep and imaginatively to retrieve
their history; while male historians are less likely to do this because they already have
plenty to look at.
The ‘taken for granted’ masculinity which permeates business activity and the study
of its history in fact embodies ideological notions of gender hierarchy and power.
Although ‘gender’, as a conceptual approach to historical understanding, does not
constitute a challenge to male dominance, but rather aims to make this dominance
transparent and to explore it, reluctance to engage with it may be based on such
concern. The recent growth of work engaging with notions of masculinity has the
potential to provide gendered business history with the required counterpoise. This
will be explored further below.
The lack of gendered insights in British business history also has to do with the
institutional development of women’s and gender history. This has progressed more
slowly as a separate discipline in Britain than in the US , and is often lost in
‘mainstream’ history departments. At the same time business historians are employed
either in Management or Business Schools or in faculties of economics. Either way
little institutional opportunity exists for ‘gender historians’ and business historians to
engage in dialogue. A difference also exists between the US and GB in the way in
which the respective disciplines of women’s history and gender history have
developed. American practitioners have demonstrated a preference for women’s
history, while at the same time producing influential insights into gender, and this is
reflected in much of their business history. In Britain, it could be argued that while
gender history has gained ground at the expense of women’s history, gender
5
historians have not yet been greatly enthused by the project of business history. So,
the sluggish progress of gendered business history in Britain is not only the outcome
of the failure of male business historians to contemplate gender issues, but is also the
result of gender historians – be they male or female – failing to pursue their concerns
within business history.
II The gendered context of business and its history
These are possible explanations but not justifications; and if British business history
continues to ignore or marginalise gender, it will not only be the poorer for it, but will
fail to adequately reflect the context within which it operates. Business is not a
discrete sphere based on a distinct value system; both business activity and its history
are influenced by beliefs and practices developed externally.
Much recent research has demonstrated not only that gender is a social construct
changeable over time, but has fluidity at any moment, and is subject to continual
renegotiation.17 Broad changes in gender positions over the past several centuries and
the way in which these changes occurred inform the gendered context of business.
During the medieval period, for example, access to business and trading opportunities
was not much affected by gender, though there is evidence that economic crises
generated gender conflict, and attempts to exclude women from business by raising
institutional barriers were generally successful.18 Constraints on women’s commercial
activities dissipated somewhat during the eighteenth century only to be reinforced
again during the nineteenth century, this time by the manipulation of gender roles and
6
identities as well as legal and commercial institutions.19 Through the twentieth
century gender roles converged, men and women gradually came to participate in the
same spheres, and in principle, supported by educational progress, second wave
feminism and equality legislation, access to business opportunities – while still
influenced by class and ethnic positions – was less constrained by gender.20 Such
trends were mirrored in access to work and occupational choice. Having been
constructed as secondary workers in both periods of significant gender conflict but
most enduringly in the context of industrialisation, women were confined to relatively
low skilled and poorly paid work. The most recent statistics demonstrate significant
progress in equalising occupational opportunities but while women currently
comprise 50 per cent of the workforce in the UK,21 largely the result of the expansion
of service sector activity, and the flexibility of work offered within that sector, they
continue to dominate less rewarding, and most exploitative work.22 Accordingly
women occupy only a small proportion of managerial positions and although upward
mobility within careers is increasingly achieved, very few women have broken
through the glass ceiling. The board rooms of companies both large and small remain
resolutely male. During the twentieth century, therefore, the economic and social
position of men and women showed signs of converging, but inequality in the nature
of work, the level of wages, and the extent of upward mobility, persists.[Table 1]
Table 1 Socio-economic group by sex, 1975-94, [percentage]
SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP
1975
1985
1994
Professional
5
6
7
Employer/manager
15
19
21
MEN
7
Intermediate and junior non-manual
17
17
17
Skilled manual, own account
41
37
35
Semi-skilled manual, personal service
17
16
14
Unskilled manual
5
5
5
Professional
1
1
2
Employer/manager
4
7
11
Intermediate and junior non-manual
46
48
48
Skilled manual, own account
9
9
8
Semi-skilled manual
31
27
22
Unskilled manual
9
7
9
WOMEN
Source: OPCS 1996: Table 7.4. Taken from Walby, Gender transformations p35
Thus the broad external context of business is gendered, even if the nature of that
gendering has changed over time. Gender also operates in subtle, ‘internal’ ways. It is
suggested here that gender constructs and gender identities play a crucial if sometimes
intangible part in the creation of business culture. Although gender is a social
construct, it need not be constructed identically in all spheres of society.23 So gender
might be constructed differently in business activity, than, say, in religious activity; or
that it might be constructed differently in different businesses. For example, it might
be possible to identify a gendered preference for particular kinds of business, with
relevance for service sector activity. The basis for such preference might be cultural
tradition or historically specific and socially constructed gender roles. In Britain,
women’s self-employment or business activity has been traditionally located in smallscale trading and marketing, caring, nursing, midwifery and other personal services.
8
These might be considered to be female-specific activities on the basis of both
socially constructed roles but also because – in the context of gender segregation –
these were the only kinds of activities open to women. Historically it has also been
difficult if not impossible for women to supervise or to manage men because of their
socially determined position, which has constrained their activity within many ‘male’
activities. Therefore, women’s business activities have been heavily based in the
service sector. The construction of gender is also relevant to an understanding of
wider notions of business. For example, where the gender of the consumer is
important, such as in the case of the men’s clothing trade, the business historian might
learn much about business strategy, by exploring the making of the male consumer
through the manipulation of notions of masculinity.24 It is also possible that the
gendering of business objectives and performance measures might also offer valid
insights. Success in business, for example, might be perceived differently by women
and men. Men, more than women, may be driven by the bottom line; women more
than men by issues of community, social justice and environment.25 Women in
business and women’s businesses have in the past, been judged as exceptions to male
indicators of success, rather than as ‘part of the gendered history of economic life’.26
Such issues relate to the culture of business; and each business may have a different
‘culture’ determined at least partly by the gender of its participants.27 It is time to take
more account of these aspects.
III Progress: services and gendered business history
9
Gender may be a useful category of analysis, but it has not yet proved popular in
Britain at least.28 Despite the failure of the mainstream of British business history to
embrace gender, practitioners of women’s history and gender history have reclaimed
much of women’s hidden past, most successfully in the context of labour and work in
British industrialisation. In doing so, an understanding of the process of
industrialisation has been enhanced. There are good reasons for expecting an
equivalent outcome to apply to the gendering of business history, not least because the
areas in which a gender approach has already proved itself, are closely connected to,
if not part of, the world of business. Examples of recent contributions can be grouped
into three categories. Firstly, work that has identified women’s activity where it – and
equally women’s talents and abilities - had previously been ignored or underplayed.
This work includes women’s business dealings, often located in the service sector,
such as Pamela Pilbeam’s analysis of the creative entertainment business of Madame
Tussaud29, and Leonore Davidoff’s work on Victorian landladies30, both of which
confirm the special ability of women from different social groups to identify and seize
business opportunities, while at the same time conforming to socially determined
positions.
Women’s facility with financial dealings is demonstrated by several recent pieces of
influential research, including Beverly Lemire’s work on the importance of women’s
role in establishing and utilising credit networks in early industrial England; Judith
Spicksley’s analysis of the role of single women in lending and information networks
in seventeenth century England; and Alison Parkinson Kay’s work on women’s selfemployment in nineteenth century London.31 Nicky Reader’s research on Female
Friendly societies illustrates women’s competence in organising both social and
10
actuarial aspects of clubs and associations, and promises to generate a gendered
analysis of what has, until now, been viewed as an exclusively male world32. Women
were often to be found operating at the interface of making and selling, as exemplified
by Stana Nenadic’s study of the Edinburgh women’s garment trades, which
demonstrates that such activity went beyond profit maximisation but rather
emphasised ‘non-utilitarian satisfactions’.33 Such work not only adds to our
knowledge of the history of entrepreneurial activity, but also suggests alternative
ways of thinking about the shape of business and the nature of success. Women’s
enterprise may well have been located at the petty end of the market, often satisfying
working class demand, and demonstrating how self-employment can emerge out of
labour, thus offering an upwardly mobile path, but this is surely no justification for
ignoring what was clearly a sizeable proportion of total British business activity. 34 On
the contrary, greater attention to such activity would clarify the heterogeneous nature
of British business.
The second category of work demonstrates how a gendered analysis, and especially a
focus on the construction of gender identities enhances an understanding of how
organisations, businesses and markets operate. Recent research in this category has
also paid particular attention to service sector activity. Robert Bennett, for example,
explores the use of the marriage bar in the clerical and service sector, with particular
reference to the British Civil Service and Barclays’ Bank. He argues that the
constraint on married women’s work helped to construct a particular organisational
culture emphasising middle class respectability through the gendered family form. He
uses his findings to suggest that gender, and culture more widely should be prioritised
in the analysis of British business, and that to maintain a ‘position in which culture is
11
subservient to economic forces….. risk[s] a retreat into both functionalism and
essentialism’35. Other work on service sector activity, including research on insurance
companies, confirms the range of ways in which gender identities were reconstructed
in the context of sectoral change in the British economy from the late nineteenth to
the early twentieth centuries. 36
The third category of research that demonstrates the fruitfulness of a gendered
approach is at an earlier stage of development and therefore more speculative, but
suggests great promise. Work by Jean Gardiner and others explores the ways in which
skills acquired by women within the domestic sphere have value within the wider
economy including business. Gardiner’s argument is that the experience accumulated
by women through organising a home and family, and engaging in a variety of caring
and educative roles, equips them well for the world of business; and that these skills
should be utilised and valued.37 Such an approach is compatible with the work of
Walby who argues that by failing to maximise the capabilities of women, business
and the economy are impoverished.38
The second reason why a gender analysis would both enhance business history and
should not be too difficult to apply, is that some practitioners of business history have
developed areas of interest which are compatible with the conceptual apparatus of
gender history. The culture of business, of which gender is a part, is a good example.
This has informed US business history for some time, and for rather less time in
Britain where economic concerns continue to take precedence over those of culture.
Yet the desire to measure – while still very strong – is being joined by an acceptance
of the need to explore the more qualitative features of business activity. The
12
contribution made by Mary Rose to this area is particularly important. While not an
explicit practitioner of gendered business history, Rose has nevertheless shown how
the ‘human’ aspect of business, reflected in networks and culture, can illuminate the
analysis of business activity.39 Through the work of Rose and others, the potential
for convergence can be seen, as well as the possibilities for using gender analysis to
enhance the understanding of business. And in principle, because there is no dominant
framework, or at least because the previously dominant framework is being
challenged; and because business historians are only too aware of the need to draw
upon relevant discourses because of the heterogeneity of their subject matter and
mode of interrogation, then a gender approach should not be too intrusive.
IV The future
The conclusion to this paper takes the form of an agenda. Before progress can be
made, current distortions in business history driven by inherent maleness, and the
universal importance of gender, need to be recognised.40 Business history as a
discipline has a traditional receptiveness to new ideas, even if individual business
historians tend to be ideologically blinkered. While the history of women’s businesses
has tended to demonstrate the exceptional nature of female entrepreneurship, and thus
made it easier for the malestream to ignore or marginalise it, which strengthens the
case for a ‘gendered’ business history, it could equally be argued that by making
women more visible, the predominance of men will also become more visible. Such
clarity will facilitate acknowledgment of an ideological framework, that economic
laws and practices are neither value free nor naturally conceived.
13
At this point it is appropriate to revisit the distinction between women’s [business]
history and gender [business] history. The former prioritises women in order to
identify their practices and achievements, and is necessary in order to redress the
balance. But it is separate and suggests that women are inevitably ‘different’; and can
therefore be marginalised and ignored. The latter embraces activity of both men and
women, and attempts to understand their interaction, their complementary
contributions and the way in which their ‘differences’ have been at least partly
socially constructed. The gender history approach, because of its inclusiveness, is one
that I advocate.
Building on an acceptance that gender has been neglected and that it is not
threatening, the progress already made in the area of ‘culture’ can be developed. The
challenge will be to clarify the links between culture and gender. One way in which
this might be done is to explore more fully the categories of masculinity and
femininity which are defined by culture and subject to historical change. Femininity
has been thoroughly explored, and often assumed to be incompatible with
entrepreneurship, while masculinity, assumed to be more in tune with the world of
business, has not so often been fully specified. The construction of masculinity [or
masculinities] deserves as much attention as that of femininity. Perhaps the time has
come to shift the balance. Then, it will be easier to ask questions about the gendered
organisation of the business world, and accept that gender relations in business should
become an essential part of historical analysis. Given the small numbers of women
currently practising business history in the UK, and by no means all of these are
convinced by the gendered approach, the gendering of business history will have to
14
become a gender inclusive enterprise. Men must become aware of its value and
practicality. The pursuit of business goals are perpetuated through gendered practices.
Business history needs more than economic analysis for its complete understanding.
Gender may lack tangibility, yet it provides valuable insights into the operation of business
in the past.
1
John F Wilson, British business history 1720-1994, 1995, p1; Barry Supple Essays in British business
history 1977, p1. This is also implied by Mary Rose in Firms, networks and business values. The
British and American cotton industries since 1750, 2000, pxi where she argues that the performance of
British business has so often been judged from an American perspective.
2
The Hagley conference on the future of business history for example. Some differences between the
US and GB are alluded to in Katrina Honeyman ‘Engendering enterprise’ Business History, 2001,
pp119-126
3
Trevor Boyns suggests that business historians in Britain discuss methodological issues much less
than is the case in other countries. ‘British business history: Review of the periodical literature for
1996’ Business History 1998 p96
4
John F Wilson ‘British business history: a review of the periodical literature for 1992’ Business
History 1994 p1
5
Mary Rose, ‘Networks, values and business: the evolution of British family firms from the eighteenth
to the twentieth century’ Entreprise et histoire 1999 p19
6
Boyns ‘British business history’ p95
7
Michael French ‘British business history: a review of the periodical literature for 1997’ Business
History 1999, p11
8
Duncan Ross, ‘British business history: a review of the periodical literature for 1998’ Business
History 2000, pp12-13
9
Boyns, ‘British business history’ p96
10
Steven Toms ‘British business history: a review of the periodical literature for 2000’, Business
History 2002, p13
11
Steven Toms and John Wilson ‘Scale, scope and accountability: Towards a new paradigm of British
business history’, paper to ABH conference, University of Cambridge, 2003
12
Mansel G Blackford, ‘British business history: a review of the periodical literature for 2001’
Business History 2003
13
For example, David Jeremy made the case for ‘innovative’ work in this area in ‘New business
history?’ Historical Journal 1994 pp717-28
14
For example, participants at the past two conferences of the Association of Business Historians were
not only overwhelmingly male, but the majority of those women attending were either graduate
students – clearly a good thing in terms of future development – or visiting scholars from the US or the
continent of Europe.
15
Here race and class are relevant as well as gender
16
Catherine Hall, ‘Politics, post-structuralism and feminist history’ Gender and History 1991
17
Scott, Jutta Schwarzkopf, Unpicking gender. The social construction of gender in the Lancashire
cotton weaving industry, 1880-1914 2004; Katrina Honeyman Women, gender and industrialisation in
England 1700-1870, 2000.
18
Katrina Honeyman and Jordan Goodman ‘Women’s work, gender conflict and labour markets in
Europe, 1500-1900’ Economic History Review 1991; B Hanawalt [ed] Women and work in preindustrial Europe 1986; Mary Prior [ed] Women in English society 1500-1800 1985.
19
Honeyman and Goodman ‘Women’s work’.
20
For example Sylvia Walby Gender transformations 1997
21
But not 50 per cent of the hours worked. Women, to a much greater extent than men, work part time.
22
Sylvia Walby Gender transformations 1997; Margaret Walsh and Chris Wrigley, ‘Womanpower: the
transformation of the labour force in the UK and the USA since 1945’ Refresh, 30, 2001
23
Schwarzkopf, Unpicking gender p3
15
Katrina Honeyman, Well suited. A history of the Leeds clothing industry 1850-1990; ‘Following
suit: men, masculinity and gendered practices in the clothing trade in Leeds, England, 1890-1940’
Gender and History, 14, 2002, pp426-446. The female consumer was constructed in a different way, as
for women, consuming, or shopping, was perceived to be an activity consistent with their ‘nature’ or
accepted behaviour.
25
Angel Kwolek-Folland makes the suggestion that women’s participation in business may be
influenced by domestic experience and internalise values other than pure profit and individual success,
in ‘Gender and business history’, her introduction to Enterprise and Society special issue, 2001
26
Wendy Gamber, Gender and business history’ Business History Review 1998, p191
27
As Alice Kessler Harris suggests, if ‘we want to approach a multi-dimensional perspective, we need
to be aware of the full range of cultural signals that guided decision making at all levels’. ‘Ideologies
and innovation: gender dimensions of business history’, Business and Economic History 1991, p51
28
Scott ‘Gender and business history’, Business History Review,1998, p242
29
Pamela Pilbeam, ‘Madame Tussaud and the business of wax: marketing to the middle classes’
Business History, 45, 1, 2003
30
Leonore Davidoff, ‘The separation of home and work? Landladies and lodgers in nineteenth and
twentieth century England’ in Sandra Burman [ed] Fit work for women 1979
31
For example, Beverly Lemire, ‘Petty pawns and informal lending: gender and the transformation of
small-scale credit in England, circa 1600-1800’ in Kristine Bruland and Patrick O’Brien [eds] From
family firms to corporate capitalism. Essays in business and industrial history in honour of Peter
Mathias, 1998; Judith Spicksley, ‘Was the single woman really marginal? Lending and information
networks in seventeenth century England’ paper delivered to the workshop of the Women’s Committee
of the Economic History Society, 2003; and Alison Parkinson Kay, ‘A respectable business: women
and self-employment in nineteenth century London’, paper delivered to the Economic History Society
Conference, Durham, April 2003. Alastair Owens has also contributed to this area of historical
enquiry. See forthcoming chapter on ‘Women and investment in nineteenth century Britain; and D R
Green and A Owens, ‘Gentlewomanly capitalism? Spinsters, widows and wealth holding in England
and Wales c 1800-1860’ Economic History Review, LVI, 3, 2003
32
Nicola Reader ‘Female friendly societies, 1780-1850’ PhD research in progress, School of History,
University of Leeds.
33
Stana Nenadic ‘The social shaping of business behaviour in the nineteenth century women’s garment
trades’ Journal of social History 1998
34
Stana Nenadic argued, in ‘social shaping…’, that the vast majority of businesses in nineteenth
century Britain were small in scale, and unmodernised in their structure and strategy.
35
Robert Bennett, ‘Gendering cultures in business and labour history: marriage bars in clerical
employment’ in Margaret Walsh [ed] Working out gender. Perspectives from labour history 1999,
p204
36
Ellen Jordan ‘The lady clerks at the Prudential: the beginning of vertical segregation by sex in
clerical work in nineteenth century Britain’, Gender and History, 8, 1, 1996
37
Jean Gardiner, Gender, care and economics 1997; and ‘Rethinking self-sufficiency: employment,
families and welfare’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 2000, pp671-89
38
Walby, Gender transformations
39
See, for example, Mary B Rose, ‘Networks, values and business: the evolution of British family
forms from the eighteenth to the twentieth century’, Entreprise et Histoire 1999; Jonathan Brown and
Mary B Rose [eds] Entrepreneurship, networks and modern business 1993
40
Both Chandler, and Berthof, confirm the masculine nature of business enterprise as an implicit
justification for a male approach to business history. Although Chandler’s approach is being
increasingly criticised, it continues to underpin the work of many male business historians.
24
16