2083433

The Division of Household Labor

Author(s): Beth Anne Shelton and Daphne John

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996), pp. 299-322

Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083433

Accessed: 26/11/2013 21:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [e-mail].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Annu.Rev. Sociol. 1996. 22:299-322

Copyright? 1996 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

THE DIVISIONOF HOUSEHOLD LABOR

BethAnneShelton

Departmentof Sociology andAnthropology,Universityof Texasat Arlington,

Arlington,Texas76019

DaphneJohn

Departmentof Sociology, OberlinCollege, Oberlin,Ohio 44074

KEY WORDS: housework,gender,time use, measurement

ABSTRACT

In this chapterwe review researchon the division of household labor and its consequences. The review summarizesresearchfocused on issues of measurement, including researchon methodsof gatheringdataon houseworktime and timeuse in generalanddiscussionsof variousways to operationalizethe division of householdlabor. Some attentionis paid to historicalandtheoreticalworkon houseworkand women's responsibilityfor it in particular,followed by a more detaileddiscussionof currentempiricalapproachesto explainingthe division of householdlabor as well as criticisms of these approaches. Finally, we review researchthatexaminesthe consequencesof the division of householdlabor,focusing on those studiesthatexamine its impacton laborforce participationand wages, maritalandfamilysatisfaction,psychologicalwell-being,andperceptions of fairness.

INTRODUCTION

The most notablecharacteristicof the currentdivision of household labor is that,whetheremployedornot,womencontinueto do themajorityof housework (Brines 1993, Marini& Shelton 1993, Robinson 1988). Currentestimatesare that men do between 20% (Robinson 1988) and 35% (Presser 1994) of the 299

0360-0572/96/0815-0299$08.00

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

300 SHELTON&JOHN

housework. In spite of disagreementover the significance of change in the division of householdlabor,the natureof the recentshifts is clear. Womenstill do the majorityof housework,but they aredoing less and theirspouses more thanin the past. In this paper,we review the centralissues andquestionsthat ariseinresearchon thedivisionof householdlabor.Inbrief,theseissues pertain to howhouseworkcanandshouldbe measured,whatfactors,eitherhistoricalor contemporary,can help us understandthe currentdivision of householdlabor and variationin it, and finally, the consequences of the unequaldivision of householdlabor.

MEASUREMENT

Household labor is defined in a varietyof ways and even when defined in a consistentway, the precisemethodof measurementvariesfromstudyto study. Houseworkis rarelydefined explicitly in a study except for an indicationof whetherchildcareis includedin its definition.Nevertheless,a fairlyconsistent conceptualizationhas emergedin the literature.Houseworkmost often refers to unpaid work done to maintainfamily membersand/ora home. As such, emotion workandother"invisible"types of workaretypicallyexcludedfrom analysis, althoughsome studiesmentionthe importanceof this invisible labor. In most studies, the definitionof houseworkmust be inferredfrom the way it is measured.

Typesof Instruments

TIMEDIARIES One methodused to gatherinformationabouthouseworktime is thetime diary(Harvey1993). In a timediary,therespondent(andsometimes the spouse/partner)is askedto completea diaryaccountingfor his/hertime for a 24-hourperiod. Examplesof studiesof this type arethe well-knownsurveys of time use carriedout by the Survey ResearchCenter at the University of Michigan in 1965-1966, 1975-1976, and 1981, and by the Survey Research Centerat the Universityof Marylandin 1985.

Time diariesdifferin a varietyof ways includingwhetherrespondentscompletethe diaryduringthedayforwhichdataarebeingcollectedorwhetherthey completea diaryretrospectively.Retrospectivediariescompletedone day later are,comparedto ongoing diaries,of almostequalvalue (Robinson1985), and accuratedata aboutweekendscan be obtainedup to seven days later(Kalton 1985). Retrospectivediariesare less expensive to use since only one visit by an intervieweris required.

Time diariesareproblematicto the extentthatthe diaryday is not representativeof the generalpatternof activitiesduringa day. This potentialproblem is handled in most studies by ensuring that differentdays of the week are

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEDIVISIONOFHOUSEHOLDLABOR 301

represented(Robinson1977, Sanik 1981,Walker& Woods 1976) and,in some cases, that data are collected in differentseasons of the year (Hill 1985). In spiteof theseefforts,it is difficultto obtaindatafortimesaroundmajorholidays (Lyberg1989).

The reliabilityandvalidityof time diarieshavebeen assessedby comparing respondents'andspouses' accountsof whenanactivityoccurred(Juster1985), as well as by comparingactivities recordedin time diaries with those occurring when respondentsreportedtheir activity at the signal of a beeper set to go off randomly(Robinson 1985). These studiesreportcorrelationsbetween estimatesobtainedby differentmethodsof between .68 and .81.

AlthoughHarvey(1993) reportsthatthetimediarymethodis relativelyrobust withrespectto minorvariationsin format,othersfindthatquestionnaireformat has an effect on responses(Geurts& De Ree 1993). Anotherlimitationof time diaries,andothermethodsof gatheringdataabouttime use, is the difficultyin dealing with tasksperformedsimultaneously(Nichols 1980, Warner1986).

DIRECTQUESTIONS Direct questionsabouthouseholdlabortime range from questionsthathaverespondentsestimatetheirusualtimespenton alistof household activities(NationalSurveyof Families& Households1987) to those that have respondentsindicatehow muchtime they usuallyspendon "housework" (PanelStudyof IncomeDynamics 1976,Qualityof EmploymentSurvey1977).

Therearefew studiesthatcomparetime-diaryto direct-questiondata,butthose thatdo find thatdirectquestionstypicallyproducehighertime estimatesthan time diaryquestions(Juster& Stafford1991,Niemi 1993), especiallyfor activities thatoccurfrequently(Marini& Shelton1993). Foractivitiesthatoccurinfrequently,directquestionsproducelowerestimates,possibly becausea longer periodof recallis required(Hill 1985). Marini& Shelton(1993) comparedata from the NSFH and from the Michigan Surveyof Time Use (STU) and find that,in general,theNSFH estimates,basedon directquestions,resultin higher time estimates,butslightly lowerestimatesof tasksegregation.In general,the qualityof bothdirect-questionandtime-diarymeasuresis improvedby the use of narrowlydefinedtasks.

OTHERMEASURES Some researchersfocus on who performsspecific tasks ratherthan how much time is spent on those tasks (Berk & Berk 1978). In a similar method, Blair & Lichter(1991) assess the amountof task segregation by calculatingan indexof segregationbasedon the Indexof Dissimilarity. This measure assesses gender differences in how women and men allocate their housework time among tasks. Ratherthan using an estimate of time expenditures,some studies use measuresthatindicateonly the proportionof houseworkdone by thehusbandorwife (Warner1986). Proportionalmeasures

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

302 SHELTON&JOHN

usuallyhave respondentsindicatewhetherthe wife always, wife usually,both wife andhusband,husbandusuallyor husbandalwaysdoes a particularhousehold task (Blood & Wolfe 1960, Huber& Spitze 1983, Staffordet al 1977, Ferree1991), butsome researcherscalculateproportionalmeasuresfromtime estimates(Ishii-Kuntz& Coltrane1992a,b,Peters& Haldeman1987). Finally, some researchershave respondentsindicatewho is responsiblefor household tasks, ratherthan only who performsthe tasks (Geerken& Gove 1983), thus allowing some assessmentof managementresponsibility.

Inadditionto differencesinhowhouseworkis measured,whoprovidestheinformationabouthouseworktimevariesas well. Some studieshaveone member of a householdprovideestimatesof all householdmembers'houseworktime, while othershave each memberof the household,or each adultmember,provide anestimateof theirtimeexpenditures.Respondentstypicallyoverestimate theirown houseworktimeandunderestimatethetime spentby otherhousehold members(Marini& Shelton 1993), leading some researchersto use averages of respondentand spouse estimatesof time when possible (Marini& Shelton 1993).

The varietyof wayshouseworkis measuredbothcomplicatesanyassessment of the literatureandindicatesthe need for developmentof reliablemeasuresof housework.Up to thispoint,mostresearchersareleft to use whatevermeasures of houseworkareavailableandthenmustcontendwiththe problemsthis poses when comparingtheirresultsto otherstudies.

HISTORICAL TREATMENTS

Historicaldiscussions of householdlaborrangefrom detaileddocumentation of changes in how houseworkis definedandhow it has been affectedby technological innovations(Bose et al 1984,Cowan1983, Strasser1982) to analyses of the impactof industrializationon the distributionof housework.

Technologicaldevelopmentsand the mass productionof household goods led to the increasedavailabilityand use of what are often called laborsaving devices (Bose 1979, Bose et al 1984, Day 1992, Jackson1992, Strasser1982). Some arguethatsuchtechnologyhomogenizedhouseholdlaborby standardizing whatwas expectedin termsof householdlaboracrosssocial class, although some maintainthese standardsby hiring outside help (Cowan 1983, Glenn 1992, Jackson 1992, Schor 1991, Strasser1982). Otherresearchsuggests that as women were drawninto the paidlaborforce, theirtime availablefor houseworkdecreased,buttechnologicalinnovationsallowed themto maintaintheir houseworkstandardseven thoughthey were employed(Bose 1979, Bose et al 1984, Day 1992). Still othersemphasizehow innovationsin householdtechnologies served to reallocatewomen's time to householdlaborin the form of

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEDIVISIONOFHOUSEHOLDLABOR 303

new tasksthatneededto be done (e.g. tub andtoilet cleaning)or into upholding higherhouseholdstandards(e.g. morecomplicatedmeals, cleanercarpets) (Cowan 1983, Jackson 1992, McGaw 1982, Schor 1991). In fact, it did both; new householdtechnologies increasedwomen's workloadin some areas but reducedthe time requiredto complete othertasks (e.g. sew a garment). Althoughit is not clearthatnew householdtechnologiesallowedwomento enter the paidlaborforce, they were compatiblewith theirlaborforce participation.

Industrialization,more generally,has been linked to the separationof paid andunpaidworkandthe developmentof the role of "housewife"(Ahlander& Bahr 1995, Bourke 1994, Lopata1993, Valadez& Clignet 1984) as well as to women'sdependenceon men throughtheirrelianceon theirhusbands'wages (Jackson1992, Lamphere1989, Lopata 1993). Bourke (1994) suggests that increasedwages in Englandin the late nineteenthcenturyencouragedmany womento remainin thehouseholdinsteadof enteringthepaidlaborforce, thus reinforcingthe role of housewife.

EXPLANATIONSFORTHEDIVISIONOF HOUSEHOLD LABOR

Marxist/SocialistFeminism

Intheiranalysesof householdlaborandwomen'sresponsibilityfor it, socialist feministsarguethatpatriarchyis causallyrelatedto the division of labor,with men benefiting, directly and indirectly,from the control of women's labor (Folbre& Hartmann1989, Hartmann1979, 1981, Sokoloff 1980). In addition, Delphy(1977) arguesthatwomen'srelationsto menin thehouseholddetermine not only the natureof their participationin the labor market,but their class positionas well (see also Jackson1992).

Otherssee capitalismratherthanpatriarchyas directlyrelatedto the division of householdlaborandto women'spositionin the family moregenerally, althoughthese Marxistfeminist approachesdiffer in the way they conceptualize the links betweenpatriarchyand capitalism(Walby 1986, Jaggar1988). Marxistfeministsarguethattherequirementsof capitalismdeterminewomen's oppression(Shelton& Agger 1993, Smith 1983,Vogel 1983), althoughthereis significantdisagreementoverwhetherhouseholdlaborproducessurplusvalue (James& Dalla Costa 1973, Kain 1993, Seccombe 1974).

Forthe mostpart,marxistandsocialistfeministapproachesto understanding thedivisionof householdlaborhavenotledto empiricaltestsof theirusefulness, butthereare severalexceptions. Hardesty& Bokemeier(1989) andCalasanti & Bailey (1991) tryto test aspectsof the socialist feministapproachto understandingthe division of householdlabor,while Meissneret al (1975) use what

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

304 SHELTON&JOHN

they call a dependentlabor model to accountfor the fact that women's employmentresultsin a cumulationof demandson themratherthanin change in theirhusbands'houseworktime. All of these studiescharacterizethe division of householdlaboras atleastpartlyreflectingstructuralfactors,butthemethod of testing the influenceof these factorsis not consistent.

RelativeResource,TimeAvailability,and Ideology

Theempiricalresearchonthedivisionof householdlaboris dominatedby quantitativestudiesthatuse one ormoreof threeexplanationscommonlyreferredto as the relativeresources,time constraints,and ideology/sex role explanations (Godwin 1991, Ross 1987, Shelton 1992).

The relative resourcesexplanationbuilds on the work of Blood & Wolfe (1960) andconceptualizesthedivisionof houseworkas reflectingtheresources men and women bring to relationships. According to this explanation,the individualwiththe mostresources(education,earnings,occupationalprestige) uses those resourcesto negotiatehis/herway out of housework(Brines 1993). This approachassumes thathouseworkis viewed negativelyby both women and men andthatthey arethereforemotivatedto reducetheirshareof it.

Evaluationsof this explanationyield fairlyconsistentresults,althoughit is operationalizedin a varietyof ways. In studies of the impactof earningson the division of householdlabor,most researchersfindthatthe smallerthe gap betweenhusbands'andwives' earningsthemoreequalthedivisionof household labor(Blair& Lichter1991, Brayfield1992, Kamo 1988, 1991, 1994, Presser 1994, Ross 1987, Shelton& John 1993a) althoughsome arguethatthis effect, while statisticallysignificant,is small (Goldscheider& Waite 1991). Those studies that assess the effect of earningson men's and women's housework time separatelytypically find thatearningshave a greatereffect on women's houseworktime thanon men's. Brines (1994) interpretsthis differencein the effect of earnings on women's and men's houseworktime as supportfor a genderdisplayinterpretation(see page 312). Thus,men who areeconomically dependentontheirwives compensateby "adoptinggender-traditionalbehaviors elsewhere"(Brines 1994: p. 664) (e.g. housework).

Educationalattainmentalso is used as a measureof powerorresources.The majorityof studiesthatincorporateeducationinto theiranalysesuse absolute measuresof women'sandmen'seducationallevels (Berardoet al 1987, Bergen 1991, Brayfield1992, Calasanti& Bailey 1991, Hardesty& Bokemeier 1989, Kamo 1988, 1991, 1994, Ross 1987, Spitze 1986), although several other studies use relative measures of education (Coverman1985, Ishii-Kuntz& Coltrane1992b, Deutschet al 1993), sometimesin combinationwith absolute measures(Blair&Lichter1991,Presser1994). Mostresearchersfindthatmen's educationallevel is positively associatedwith theirparticipationin housework

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEDIVISIONOFHOUSEHOLDLABOR 305

(Berardoet al 1987, Bergen 1991, Brayfield1992, Brines 1993, Haddad1994, Hardesty& Bokemeier1989, Kamo 1988, Presser1994, South& Spitze 1994) andnegativelyassociatedwith theirspouse's orpartner'shouseholdlabortime (Kamo 1991, Shelton& John 1993a). These results are inconsistentwith the predictionsof the relativeresourceapproachand aresometimesinterpretedas indicatingthe relationshipbetween educationand ideology (Coverman1985, Farkas1976,Presser1994)orsubculture(Huber& Spitze 1983).Severalstudies findno associationbetweenmen'seducationandhouseworktime (Kamo 1991, McAllister 1990) or thatthe effect disappearsonce genderideology measures areincluded(Kamo 1994).

Thefindingson theeffect of women'seducationon thedivisionof household laborgenerallyindicatethatwomen'seducationallevel is negativelyassociated with their household labor time (Berardoet al 1987, Bergen 1991, Brines 1993, Shelton & John 1993a, South& Spitze 1994) and with the level of task segregation(Blair& Lichter1991). Althoughthesefindingsareconsistentwith the relativeresourcesexplanation,they also are consistentwith the argument thatbettereducatedwomenholdmoreegalitariansex role attitudesandthusdo less housework,while bettereducatedmen do more (Huber& Spitze 1983).

Occupationalprestige, anothermeasure of resources, is less consistently associated with houseworktime than are earnings or education level in the few models thatincludeit. As predictedby the relativeresourcemodel, some researchersreportthatmen's occupationalstatusis negativelyassociatedwith theirhouseworktime (McAllister1990),butmorefindthatit is eitherpositively associatedwith theirhouseworktime (Berk& Berk 1978, Deutschet al 1993) or not associated with it (Aytac 1990, Coverman1985). Aytac (1990) finds thatmen whose wives aredecision-makerson thejob aremore likely to share householdlaborthanare men whose wives do not have such authorityon the job. Presser(1994) reportsthatboth women and men in professionalcouples spend less time on houseworkthanwomen andmen in othertypes of couples.

Most studies find no associationbetween women's occupationalstatusand their household labor time (Calasanti & Bailey 1991, McAllister 1990). Hardesty& Bokemeier (1989) operationalizeoccupationsas male or female dominatedandfindno associationbetweenoccupationandhouseworktime for women, butBrayfield's(1992) studyrevealsthata woman'sworkplaceauthority relativeto herhusbandis negativelyassociatedwithherhouseworktime for womenin highersupervisorypositions,butnotfor womenwith lower supervisorypositions. Studiesof theeffect of social class on the divisionof household labortypically find little or no effect of social class (Gregson& Lowe 1993, Wrightet al 1992), furthersuggestingthathouseholdlaborandstandardshave been homogenized.

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

306 SHELTON&JOHN

Thus,themostsupportfortherelativeresourcesexplanationderivesfromthe associationbetweenearningsandhouseworktime, althoughthe genderdifference intheassociationcannotbe accountedforintherelativeresourcemodel. In addition,the associationbetweenearningsandhouseworktimemayalso reflect households'attemptsto distributehouseworkefficiently(Becker 1981, 1985).

According to the ideology explanation,women and men with more egalitarianattitudeswill have a more equal division of householdlaborthanthose with moretraditionalattitudes.Specifically,menwith moretraditionalsex role attitudesare expected to spend less time on houseworkthan those with less traditionalattitudes(Huber& Spitze 1983), while the reverseis expected for women (Brayfield1992). Thefindingsof most studiesareconsistentwith these expectations, althoughthe strengthof the association between attitudesand houseworktime usuallyis weak.

Most studies find thatthe more egalitarianmen's genderrole attitudes,the moreequalthe division of householdlabor,butthey typicallyuse proportional measuresof men'sshareof housework(Blair&Lichter1991, Kamo1988, 1994, Presser 1994, Ross 1987). The resultsarenot completelyconsistent,however. Brayfield(1992) reportsthatmen's attitudesaboutwhetherhouseworkshould be sharedwhenbothhusbandandwife areemployedfull-timearenotassociated with their shareof housework,but she uses only one item to assess attitudes, comparedto otherswho use multipleindicatorsof attitudes(Blair & Lichter 1991, Kamo 1988, Presser 1994, Ross 1987). To the extent that there is an associationbetweenmen's genderrole attitudesandtheirproportionalshareof housework,it is most likely due to its effect on their wives' houseworktime (Kamo 1991, Shelton& John 1993a,Presser1994).

Fewerstudiesfindanassociationbetweenwomen'sgenderrole attitudesand the division of householdlabor,but those thatdo find thatwomen with more egalitarianattitudesspend less time on housework(Brayfield 1992, Presser 1994) andexperienceless tasksegregation(see also Atkinson& Huston 1984, Gunter& Gunter1990). However,a numberof otherresearchersfindno effect of women's genderrole attitudeson theirhouseworktime (Ross 1987, Shelton

&John 1993a).

Althoughgenderroleattitudesaremeasuredina varietyof ways, moststudies

indicatethatmen's attitudesare more stronglyassociatedwith the division of household laborthan are women's, but thatattitudesdo not accountfor very muchof the variationin thedivisionof householdlabor.Those studiesthatfind no associationbetween attitudesandthe division of householdlabortypically have weak measuresof attitudes(Shelton& John 1993a) or housework(Ross 1987). Researcherswith time estimatesof houseworkand multipleindicators of genderrole attitudesusuallyreportan associationbetweenthem.

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEDIVISIONOFHOUSEHOLDLABOR 307

The time availability(Hiller 1984), demand/responsecapability(Coverman 1985), andthesituationalview (England& Farkas1986)referto anexplanation thatcharacterizesthe division of householdlaboras the resultof women's and men'sothertimecommitments.Thisexplanationsuggeststhatmenandwomen participatein houseworkandchildcareto the extentthattherearedemandson themto do so andtheyhaveavailabletime. Themostcommonlyusedindicators of time constraintsareemploymentand/orhoursworked,presenceor number of childrenin the household,andworkschedule.

Moststudiesindicatethatwomen'spaidworkhoursarenegativelyassociated with theirhouseworktime (Acock & Demo 1994, Almeidaet al 1993, Bergen 1991, Brayfield1992, Brines 1993,Demo & Acock 1993,Fox & Nickols 1983, Kamo 1991, Rexroat& Shehan1987), with the level of tasksegregation(Blair

&Lichter 1991), with contributionsto male-typedtasks (Atkinson& Huston 1984) or female-typedtasks (Brayfield 1992). Nevertheless,no matterwhat women'spaidworktime, theycontinueto do themajorityof housework(Kamo 1991, Newell 1993, Rexroat& Shehan1987, Shelton& John 1993a).

Resultsof studiesof therelationshipbetweenwomen'semploymentandtheir husband'shouseworktime areless consistent. Nickols & Metzen (1982), in a longitudinalstudy,reportthatmen increasetheirhouseworktime when their wives increasetheirtime spentin paid work. Severalotherstudiesalso report thatwomen's workhoursarepositivelyassociatedwith men's houseworktime (Blair & Lichter 1991, Brines 1993), but more often with men's proportional share of housework(Barnett& Baruch 1987, Ishii-Kuntz& Coltrane1992a, Kamo 1988, Rexroat& Shehan 1987, Ross 1987). Atkinson& Huston(1984) find that when women spend more time than their husbandsin paid labor, husbandsdo morefemale-typedtasks,butBrayfield(1992) findsno association between relative work hours and men's houseworktime. Otherstudies find weak, indirect,or nonsignificantassociationsbetween women's employment andmen's houseworktime (Kamo 1991, Levantet al 1987, Shelton 1990).

A numberof studies find a negative associationbetween men's paid work hoursandemploymentstatusandtheirparticipationin housework(Coltrane& Ishii-Kuntz1992, Coverman1985, Hardesty& Bokemeier 1989, Ishii-Kuntz

&Coltrane1992b, Kamo 1988, 1991, McAllister1990, South& Spitze 1994), although Brines (1993) suggests that the effect may not be linear. Blair &

Lichter(1991) find that men's work hours are positively associatedwith the extent of household task segregation. Few studies consider the relationship between men's work hours and their wives' houseworktime (but see Kamo 1991 andRexroat& Shehan1987).

Takentogether,the studies usually indicate that women's paid work time is negativelyassociatedwith theirhouseworktime, resultingin a more equal

This content downloaded from 89.218.1.74 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:36:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions