Migrations and Border Processes by Margit Fauser Anne Friedrichs Levke Harders

Author:Margit Fauser, Anne Friedrichs, Levke Harders [Margit Fauser, Anne Friedrichs, Levke Harders]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Nonfiction, Social & Cultural Studies, Social Science, Cultural Studies, Emigration & Immigration, Anthropology
ISBN: 9781000343977
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 2021-05-13T04:00:00+00:00

Migration and Women's Emancipation

"As chicken is not a bird, woman is not a human being" [Kuritsa ne ptitsa, baba ne chelovek] —is a traditional Russian proverb that represented the prevailing opinion of a patriarchal society probably not only in rural areas. The rights of women in late Tsarist Russia were rather limited. Without the father's or husband's approval no woman was allowed to work, let alone to migrate (Häfner 2011, 49-50; Kozhukhov 1901, 158). The conservative press considered individualism and migration to threaten the compound family and thus the traditional patriarchal societal order. The spatial division through otkhod did not correspond to the traditional family patterns. This was even more true in cases of female migration that were considered to provoke the decay of the peasant family (Hourwich 1892, 90, 101, 103; Kashkarov 1900, 2; Kozhukhov 1901, 158; Mera 1900, 1-2). Even if the idea of women as not equivalent beings to men consolidated (Zelnik 1976, 277), migration opened two new perspectives: If a woman migrated, her level of autonomy increased. If she remained in the village, her responsibilities for home and farm grew considerably (Moon 2006, 383). Therefore women could be seen as "the champions in this 'fight for individuality'" (Hourwich 1892, 91).

Contemporaries interpreted migration, and in particular non-seasonal migration, as a road to freedom. At least, it meant for many emancipation from domestic despotism, the patriarchal rule of the household head, the bol'shak (Hourwich 1892, 91; Kanatchikov 1986, 4; see Kessler 2013, 137; Mironov 2014, 695; Zelnik 1976, 256).

When men went on otkhod, women had to assume their tasks and responsibilities. These functions referred to the peasant self-government of the village community (skhod). Usually, taking part in the assembly was a male domain and women were barred from participating (Zhbankov 1891, 88; see Engel 1994b, 38, 40, 50). Further, women took the responsibility for all family and economic matters, as well as for the hard field work, although ploughing and harvesting were traditional male tasks. Well-off families employed a farm laborer to deal with these jobs (Sumkin 1908, 4; Vesin 1886, 132; Vorob'ev 1903, 22-3). The downside was that women gained freedom and autonomy that many refused to give up after their husbands' return. Thus, personal developments came into harsh conflict with societal tradition (Zhbankov 1890, 142).

We should not disregard the aspect of interpersonal alienation a longer separation could evoke (Engel 1994a, 41). Whereas the social control in the village was relatively strict, migration was generally equated with rather lax morals, and this probably even after returning from the city. Men often established new relations not seldom causing a disruption to their home contacts. They sometimes abandoned payments to their family or even stopped any communication (Zhbankov 1890, 143). An excessive lifestyle was, however, not a male specificity (RGIA, f. 796, op. 189, d. 5675,11. 1-3). Many contemporary critics complained that youth working as farm laborers in the South were exposed daily to moral corruption (Iaroshko 1894, 217).

In late Imperial Russia usually whole families participated in the Trans-Urals migration (Jadrinzew [Jadrintsev] 1886,177; see Goehrke 2003,216).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.