Gender, Welfare, and Citizenship in Britain during the Great War
Gender, Welfare, and Citizenship in Britain during the Great War
复制标题
第一次世界大战期间英国的性别、福利和公民身份
DOI：
10.1086/ahr/95.4.983
复制
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Pedersen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Pedersen
谁是公民？正是在第二次世界大战期间和之后，英国福利国家的经典理论家理查德·蒂特马斯、威廉·贝弗里奇爵士和马歇尔通过提出一个由社会和政治纽带联结的共同体来回答这个问题。他们说，公民不仅参与社区的政治生活，拥有政治权利，而且还为社区的社会和经济福祉作出贡献，从中获得社会和经济权利。他们对公民身份的定义是广泛的，但也是基于功能的。而且，通过想象一个社会权利源于社会职能的政体，他们提出了一个问题，即哪些形式的活动应该被适当地视为公民职能。如果经商和工作能带来公民权利，那么持家和育儿也能带来吗？社会公民的性别含义是什么？当贝弗里奇在他1942年的著名报告中谈到这些问题时，他坚持认为，尽管新的福利国家将对男女进行严格的区分，但它仍然会公平地对待妇女。福利的提供将是分开的，但平等的：男子和妇女将被赋予与其分别作为工资劳动者和母亲的职能角色相适应的保险地位。然而，正如女权主义批评者当时和之后所争论的那样，贝弗里奇想象的福利国家和战后规划者实施的福利国家不仅区别对待性别，而且不平等。国家不是为每个人单独投保，而是主要根据丈夫和父亲的经济状况来确定整个家庭的权利，而与妻子和母亲的工作（有工资或无工资）无关。例如，虽然男子在生病、丧失工作能力或失业时为其假定的受扶养家庭以及为自己领取福利，但已婚妇女工薪人员则不参加涵盖男子和单身妇女的强制性就业保险。没有收入的妻子能否获得国家福利取决于其丈夫的地位，她只有在分娩或丈夫不在或死亡时才能领取独立福利。2
WHO IS A CITIZEN? It was during and after World War II that the classic theorists of the British welfare state-Richard Titmuss, Sir William Beveridge, and TH Marshall-answered this question by positing a community bound by social as well as political ties. The citizen, they said, not only participates in the political life of the community and holds political rights but also contributes to its social and economic well-being, drawing from it social and economic entitlements.'Their definition of citizenship was expansive, but it was also functionally based. And, by imagining a polity in which social rights stem from social functions, they begged the question of which forms of activity would properly be considered citizenship functions. If soldiering and working are to bring with them citizenship entitlements, will housekeeping or mothering do so as well? What are the gender implications of social citizenship?When Beveridge addressed these questions in his famous report of 1942, he insisted that while the new welfare state would differentiate sharply between men and women, it would nevertheless treat women fairly. Welfare provision would be separate but equal: men and women would be granted an insurance status appropriate to their functional roles of, respectively, wage earner and mother. Yet, as feminist critics argued then and have argued since, the welfare state imagined by Beveridge and implemented by postwar planners treated the sexes not only differently but unequally. Rather than insuring each individual independently, the state determined the entitlements of entire families primarily by the economic status of the husband and father, independent of the work, waged or otherwise, of the wife and mother. For example, while men received benefits for their presumed dependent families as well as for themselves when they were ill, incapacitated, or unemployed, married women wage earners were exempted from the compulsory employment insurance covering men and single women. A nonearning wife's access to state benefits was mediated by her husband's status, and she drew independent benefits only for childbirth or in the event of his absence or death. 2