Gender, Family and the Social Order by Susan D. Amussen – Article Summary

Overall summary

In her 1985 article "Gender, Family and the Social Order", Susan Amussen surveys the social and familial hierarchies of Early Modern England. At that time, she explains to the modern reader, there was no conception of the family as a private unit. Instead, Renaissance theorists frequently drew parallels between the socio-political monarchic and governmental structures and the familial structure of husband, wife, and children. 

Amussen discusses two influential propagators of this parallel. First, political theorists who were concerned with the social state of affairs discussed the relationship between the king and his subjects in terms of the relationship between husband and wife and children. Just as the obedience of children of their parents is a divine commandment, it was considered the divine right of the king to rule over his subjects. Similarly, the agreement between kings and subjects was compared to the marriage contract, and rebellion of a royal subject was comparable to disobedience of children and wives. Household manuals too, Amussen explains, utilized this structural analogy in their treatises on family life. They considered the family to be a "little commonwealth", a school that teaches its members to be a subject. Children and servants were subject to physical and moral discipline from the head of the household in the same manner that a king must dispense punishment, and parents were blamed for the disobedience of servants and children as the king would be held responsible for revolt of his subjects.

Amussen distinguishes between two hierarchies present in Early Modern England. First is the gender hierarchy, in which the Renaissance man was superior to his female counterpart. Second is the socially stratified hierarchy of monarch, nobility, the merchant and farmer class, and finally peasants and servants. While in theory there is a clear distinction between different members of the order, reality at the time was much more chaotic, with phenomena such as inflation and social mobility violating the perfect order. In addition, Englishmen and women committed frequent offenses against the gender and social order. Bastardy, adultery, domestic violence, and desertions were frequent disruptors of the gender hierarchy. Phenomena that indicated rupture in social stratification, such as servants mouthing off to their masters or a farmer sitting in seats reserved for a more affluent community member, were frequent causes of distress.

For subjects of Early Modern England, the petition was a means of reporting offenses against both the gender order and the social order, even if these were not defined as crimes. Amussen explains that petitions were filed against community members who killed their neighbor's cattle, fathered their maidservants' bastards, or even against poor members of the community who refused to show gratitude for charity. Before any appeal to the law, however, unofficial action was taken against these disruptors of the order, in the form of "informal shaming rituals" such as gossiping, mockery, and public insult. Since the Early Modern Englishman was so sensitive to social criticism, these rituals were often far more effective punishment than formal appeals to the law. 

Section-by-section summary

In Early Modern England, that is, at the beginning of the renaissance, theorists drew parallels between the socio-political order of kings and subjects and the inter-familial order of husband and wife (and children). There was no conception yet, as there is today, of the family as a private unit. The analogy goes both ways. Its implications and the changes it underwent will be discussed.

I

Two literary sources discuss the analogy:

1. Patriarchal political theorists (absolutists)- patriarchs had a natural right to rule over their children, similar to the natural rights of kings to rule over their subjects. The patriarchal family is a fact of nature, as dictated by God himself – "honor thy father and thy mother" (god said to eat your peas). "For as we are born sons, we are born subjects" Men have a divine right to rule over their wives and children

Ways in which the analogy between kingdom and family affected family life:

• Marriage was permanent, as was the agreement between king and subjects
• Disobedience of children or wives was akin to rebellion of a royal subject

Families were the structural components of society. Any time something happened at the level of the state, it was feared that it would affect the family structure and vice versa- social and familial unrest could affect the state. Sermons and socio-political theses reflected each other in terms of hierarchical structure. Rebellious familial units were disciplined. It was only with John Locke, in the mid 17th century, that marriage came to be seen as a breakable contract.

2. Household manuals – usually written by puritan clergymen

• The family is a "little commonwealth"
• The family is a school that teaches being a subject
• The male head of the family had distinct roles: father, husband, master
• Members of the family as subjects of the king
• Children and servants are subject to physical and moral discipline from the heads of the household. Parents were blamed for disobedience of servants and children
• Women were to obey husbands in all things, but the reality was that they oversaw the household together, in particular, the education of children
• Husbands were allowed to beat their wives, but Gouge cautions against it because they are so close that it is like beating the self.

The manuals that made the analogy did not explore it in depth. This is because politics were seen as immutable and the household was more mutable. This mutability of relationships in manuals undermined the stability of the analogy. The analogy became especially complex in the relationship between husband and wife. Sex makes it complicated too. There is a struggle between equality and subordination. Gouge basically says that husbands should make their wives equal in governing the household so that they don't become resentful when the husbands use their authority over them.

Gouge:

• Husbands should respect their wives' requests
• Husbands and wives should have equal dominance over the household and financial matters
• Husbands are the heads, governors, protectors of their wives
• Women are expected to be submissive

The implication is that the wife should be consulted to make her feel involved but in reality, the husband knows best.

Women were important because they sold and purchased food and oversaw the family food making.

***

Other sermons encouraged honoring parents and the King in one breath. There were political metaphors in familial writing and vice versa.

II

In theory, everything was supposed to be clearly ordered and the hierarchy was clear. In reality, however, there was much disorder. How did the parallel between family and state affect the enforcement of the order on the level of both family and state?

The disorderly were frequently tried in court. These were mostly vagrants, beggars, gamblers, drunks, or enabled these crimes. Others were adulterers, fathered bastards, brawling women, people who misdisciplined their children, people who behaved irreverently in church or insulted their social superiors. Such disputes were expected to be settled unofficially, and any case that reached a court of law was considered an explicit and worrying challenge against the order. This reflected lack of perfect order:

• Inflation
• Social mobility

Types of offenses against the social order:

• Immoral behavior (drinking/ gambling)
• Disrupting class stratification (begging/sitting in inappropriate places in church)
• Disrupting the gender order (adultery/bastardy, domestic violence, desertion, divorce

Instances where mobility in the gender or social order caused anxiety:

• Noblewomen who had power over men
• Poor men (who were supposed to have no power) had power over women
• Women who had bastard children had no head of household
• Marital adultery means the husband or wife did not fulfill their gender roles
• Rebellious wives broke the social convention of submissive women
• Women often did not hold submissiveness as a foremost virtue. When women accuse other women of breaking the social order it is for sexual misconduct and not lack of submission or obedience. The extent of obedience women was obligated to show to their husbands was often disputed in court
• Domestic violence
• Desertion

Gender relations -- women were expected to be chaste and submissive; men have authority and power. There were subversions of this order but nobody questioned its propriety or moral legitimacy.

III

More challenges to the gender order but also social order. There was a form of crime reporting where you could complain about offenses that were not necessarily crimes – the petition. Petitions complained about:

• Beating children and wives
• Killing neighbor's cattle
• Fathering maid's bastards
• Refusing to pay rent
• Insulting social superiors and notables, including claims of equality or superiority
• Poor do not show gratitude for charity
• Conflicts over church seats which were supposed to reflect a hierarchy

There's no question that the social order (and gender order) exists – but it was transgressed upon. There is no real danger of revolution, but there is some unrest.

IV

• "informal shaming rituals" (think The Scarlet Letter or Taming of the Shrew)
• Gossip
• Mocking
• Formal suing was available

Starting with the early 17th century people "thought that society was falling apart". This is demonstrated in the ceasing of allegations of neighborly disruptions and other social misconduct (but not gender hierarchy). To reimplement the social order governors, priests and other peacemakers turned to the paradigms of the hierarchy in the family.

Susan B. Amussen

Works Cited

Amussen, Susan D. "Gender, Family and the Social Order, 1560-1725." Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson. Cambridge UP, 1985. Print.