Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:17:28.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Social Risk? Social-Scientific Knowledge and Work-Life Balance in Twentieth-Century Finland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2015

Kirsi Eräranta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Work-life balance, or the reconciliation of work and family, has been discussed recently as a “new social risk” in comparative research on the welfare state. According to this discussion, the social security systems of traditional welfare states were built after World War II in order to protect (male) breadwinners against the “old social risks” such as the loss of income due to old age, sickness, accident, or unemployment. Scholars have argued, however, that these postwar policies have been inadequate for dealing with the new types of risks that resulted from complex changes in employment practices and family life. This article reflects critically upon the conceptualization of work-life balance as a new social risk by focusing on one of the Nordic countries, which have come to be known for their policies that combine (female) parenthood and paid work. In particular, it analyzes the problematization and governance of work-family reconciliation in twentieth-century Finland. Overall, the article argues that social scientific knowledge played a key role in the ways in which work-life balance was rendered intelligible and manageable as a social policy issue.

Type
Special Section: Moving Targets: Risk, Security, and the Social in Twentieth-Century Europe
Information
Social Science History , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 63 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anttonen, A. (1990) “The feminization of the Scandinavian welfare state: From the social insurance state towards the social service state,” in Simonen, L. (ed.) Finnish Debates on Women's Studies. Tampere: University of Tampere: 3–25.Google Scholar
Anttonen, Anneli (1998) “Vocabularies of citizenship and gender: Finland.” Critical Social Policy 18 (3): 355–75.Google Scholar
Armingeon, K., and Bonoli, G., eds. (2006) The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States: Adapting Post-War Social Policies to New Social Risks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bergbom, Helny (1935) “ Naimisissa olevat naiset teollisuustyössä .” Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja 29 (12): 732–42.Google Scholar
Bock, G., and Thane, P. (1991) “Introduction,” in Bock, G. and Thane, P. (eds.) Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of the European Welfare States, 1880s–1950s. London: Routledge: 1–20.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2005) “The politics of the new social policies: Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states.” Policy and Politics 33 (3): 431–49.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2006) “New social risks and the politics of post-industrial social policies,” in Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. (eds.) The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States: Adapting Post-War Social Policies to New Social Risks. London: Routledge: 3–26.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2007) “Time matters: Postindustrialization, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced industrial democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (5): 495–520.Google Scholar
Brückweh, K., Schumann, D., Wetzell, R., and Ziemann, B. (eds.) (2012) Engineering Society: The Scientification of the Social in Comparative Perspective, 1880–1990. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Dahlström, E. (1987) “Everyday-life theories and their historical and ideological contexts,” in Himmelstrand, U. (ed.) The Multiparadigmatic Trend in Sociology. Uppsala: University of Uppsala: 187–96.Google Scholar
Davis, A. (2012) Modern Motherhood: Women and Family in England c. 1945–2000. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, M. (1998) “Questions of method,” in Velody, I. and Williams, R. (eds.) The Politics of Constructionism. London: Sage: 182–99.Google Scholar
Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. (1964 [1893]) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Eräranta, Kirsi, and Moisander, Johanna (2011) “Psychological regimes of truth and father identity: Challenges for work/life integration.” Organization Studies 32 (4): 509–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eräs tuhansista väsyneistä vaimoista (1920) “Työläisvaimon toivomuksia.” Työläisnainen 15 (8): 141.Google Scholar
Eskola, A. (1985) Persoonallisyystyypeistä elämäntapaan. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (2009) The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Women's New Roles. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977) “Nietzsche, genealogy, history,” in Bouchard, D. F. (ed.) Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 139–64.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1982) “The subject and power,” in Dreyfus, H. L. and Rabinow, P. (eds.) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press: 78–108.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1985 [1984]) The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality. Vol. 2. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Goffmann, Erving (1959) The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gripenberg, Alexandra (1898) “Sama työ, sama palkka.” Työväen kalenteri 6: 14–17.Google Scholar
H. A. (1907) “‘Työmies on palkkansa ansainnut.’ Entäs nainen?” Työläisnainen 2 (6): 42–43.Google Scholar
Haataja, A. (2007) “Suomalainen äitiys-, isyys- ja vanhempainrahajärjestelmä: ylistämisestä alistamiseen?” in Castrén, A.-M. (ed.) Työn ja perheen tasapaino: Sääntelyä, tutkimusta ja kehittämistä. Helsinki: Koulutus- ja kehittämiskeskus Palmenia: 14–37.Google Scholar
Haavio-Mannila, E., Jallinoja, R., and Strandell, H. (1984) Perhe, työ ja tunteet: Ristiriitoja ja ratkaisuja. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Harrikari, Timo (2008) “Exploring risk governance in the Nordic context: Finnish juvenile crime and child welfare.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 40 (1): 29–42.Google Scholar
Helén, Ilpo, and Yesilova, Katja (2006) “Shepherding desire: Sexual health promotion in Finland from the 1940s to the 1990s.” Acta Sociologica 49 (3): 257–72.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes (1984 [1970]) Everyday Life. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hernes, H. M. (1987) Welfare State and Woman Power: Essays in State Feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Hiilamo, H. (2005) “Subjektiivisen päivähoito-oikeuden toteutuminen Ruotsissa ja Suomessa 1990-luvulla,” in Takala, P. (ed.) Onko meillä malttia sijoittaa lapsiin? Helsinki: Kela: 58–79.Google Scholar
Hobson, B. (2003) “Recognition struggles in universalistic and gender distinctive frames: Sweden and Ireland,” in Hobson, B. (ed.) Recognition Struggles and Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 64–92.Google Scholar
Holli, A. M. (1992) “Why the state? Reflections on the politics of the Finnish equality movement Association 9,” in Keränen, M. (ed.) Gender and Politics in Finland. Aldershot: Avebury: 69–88.Google Scholar
Husu, L., Katainen, E., Peltonen, E., Purra, P., Raevaara, E., and Tiukka, L., eds. (1995) Lukukirja Suomen naisille. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
Jallinoja, R. (1983) Suomalaisen naisasialiikkeen taistelukaudet. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Jenson, Jane (2008) “Writing women out, folding gender in: The European Union ‘modernises’ social policy.” Social Politics 15 (2): 131–53.Google Scholar
Julkunen, R. (1990) “Women in the welfare state,” in Manninen, M. and Setälä, P. (eds.) The Lady with the Bow: The Story of Finnish Women. Helsinki: Otava: 140–60.Google Scholar
Julkunen, R. (1994) “Suomalainen sukupuolimalli—1960-luku käänteenä,” in Anttonen, A., Henriksson, L., and Nätkin, R. (eds.) Naisten hyvinvointivaltio. Tampere: Vastapaino: 179–201.Google Scholar
Kemshall, H. (2002) Risk, Social Policy and Welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Pauli (2001) “The Nordic welfare state in Finland.” Scandinavian Journal of History 26 (3): 225–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettunen, Pauli (2006) “The power of international comparison: A perspective on the making and challenging of the Nordic welfare state,” in Christiansen, N. F., Petersen, K., Edling, N., and Haave, P. (eds.) The Nordic Model of Welfare: A Historical Reappraisal. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press: 31–66.Google Scholar
Kom (1945) Väestökomitean mietintö no 5 äitiyssuojelulaki. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kom (1948) Komiteanmietintö naimisissa olevien naisten ansiotyöstä. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kom (1966) Perhekustannusten tasauskomitean mietintö. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kom (1967) Lasten päivähoitolaitostoimikunnan mietintö. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kom (1970) Naisten asemaa tutkivan komitean mietintö. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kom (1971) Lasten päivähoitokomitean mietintö. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kom (1980) Komiteanmietintö—Kansainvälisen lapsen vuoden 1979 Suomen komitea. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kuusi, P. (1962) 60-luvun sosiaalipolitiikka. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Lähteenmäki, M. (1994) “Ansioäidit arvossaan,” in Parikka, R. (ed.) Työ ja työttömyys. Helsinki: Työväen historian ja perinteen tutkimuksen seura: 66–83.Google Scholar
Lähteenmäki, M. (1995) Mahdollisuuksien aika: Työläisnaiset ja yhteiskunnan muutos 1910–30-luvun Suomessa. Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, Engels, Friedrich, and Lenin, Vladimir I. (1977) Nainen, perhe ja yhteiskunta: Valikoima. Helsinki: Kansankulttuuri Oy.Google Scholar
Melby, K., Ravn, A.-B., Rosenbeck, B., and Wetterberg, C. Carlsson (2011) “What is Nordic in the Nordic gender model?” in Kettunen, P. and Petersen, K. (eds.) Beyond Welfare State Models: Transnational Historical Perspectives on Social Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 147–68.Google Scholar
Meskus, Mianna (2006) “To exclude or to enclose? Medicalization of abortion in Finland, 1900–1950.” Scandinavian Journal of History 30 (1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Finland (1929–2001) “Avioliittolaki 234/1929,” Finlex Data Bank, http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1929/19290234 (accessed June 17, 2015).Google Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B., and Palme, J. (2012) “Beyond the welfare state as we knew it?” in Morel, N., Palier, B., and Palme, J. (eds.) Towards a Social Investment Welfare State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges. Bristol: Policy Press: 1–30.Google Scholar
Moses, J. (2012) “Contesting risk: Specialist knowledge and workplace accidents in Britain, Germany and Italy, 1870–1920,” in Brückweh, K., Schumann, D., Wetzell, R., and Ziemann, B. (eds.) Engineering Society: The Scientification of the Social in Comparative Perspective, 1880–1990. Basingstoke: Palgrave: 59–78.Google Scholar
Myrdal, A., and Klein, V. (1956) Women's Two Roles, Home and Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Myrdal, A., and Myrdal, G. (1935) Kris i befolkningsfrågan. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers förlag.Google Scholar
Niinikoski, Marja-Liisa, and Moisander, Johanna (2013) “Serial and comparative analysis of innovation policy change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85: 69–80.Google Scholar
Nolan, Mary (1990) “Housework made easy: The Taylorized housewife in Weimar Germany's rationalized economy.” Feminist Studies 16 (3): 549–78.Google Scholar
O'Malley, P. (2004) Risk, Uncertainty and Government. London: Glasshouse Press.Google Scholar
Ostner, I., and Schmitt, C. (2008) “Introduction,” in Ostner, I. and Schmitt, C. (eds.) Family Policies in the Context of Family Change: The Nordic Countries in Comparative Perspective. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag: 9–36.Google Scholar
Pälli, P., and Rissanen, T. (2006) “Työ ja perhe,” in Jakonen, M., Peltokoski, J., and Virtanen, A. (eds.) Uuden työn sanakirja. Helsinki: Tutkijaliitto: 41–49.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1954 [1942]) “Age and sex in social structure of the United States,” in Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe, IL: Free Press: 89–103.Google Scholar
Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F. (1955) Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Mark, and Scherer, Peter (1997) “Balancing security and sustainability in social policy.” The OECD Observer 205: 6–9.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S. (1993) Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peltonen, Matti (2004) “From discourse to dispositif: Michel Foucault's two histories.” Historical Reflections 30 (2): 205–19.Google Scholar
Prokop, U. (1976) Weiblicher Lebenszusammenhang: Von der Beschranktheit der Strategien und der Unangemessenheit der Wunsche. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Raitasuo, K. (1959) Ansiotyöäitien lasten päivähoito. Helsinki: Lastensuojelun keskusliitto.Google Scholar
Raphael, Lutz (1996) “Die Verwissenschaftlichung des Sozialen als methodische und konzeptionelle Herausforderung fur eine Sozialgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts.” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22 (2): 165–93.Google Scholar
Raphael, Lutz (2012) “Embedding the Human and Social Sciences in Western Societies, 1880–1980: Reflections on Trends and Methods of Current Research” in Brückweh, K., Schumann, D., Wetzell, R., and Ziemann, B. (eds.) Engineering Society: The Scientification of the Social in Comparative Perspective, 1880–1990. Basingstoke: Palgrave: 41–57.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1996) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rotkirch, H. (1968) “Yhdistys 9 uudistusten jouduttajana,” in Eskola, K. (ed.) Miesten maailman nurjat lait. Helsinki: Tammi.Google Scholar
Salmela-Järvinen, Martta (1919) “Lastentarhoja ja -seimiä sekä päiväkoteja riittävästi köyhäistön lapsille.” Sos.dem. Naisliiton IX edustajakokouksen pöytäkirja 5, 6 ja 7 p:nä joulukuuta 1919. Written presentation.Google Scholar
Salminen, K. (1993) Pension Schemes in the Making: A Comparative Study of the Scandinavian Countries. Helsinki: Central Pension Security Institute.Google Scholar
Shiner, Larry (1982) “Reading Foucault: Anti-method and the genealogy of power-knowledge.” History and Theory 21 (3): 382–98.Google Scholar
Spektorowski, Alberto, and Mizrachi, Elisabet (2004) “Eugenics and the welfare state in Sweden: The politics of social margins and the idea of a productive society.” Journal of Contemporary History 39 (3): 333–52.Google Scholar
STM (1983) Työ- ja perhe-elämätyöryhmän muistio. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö.Google Scholar
Taylor Allen, Ann (2006) “The kindergarten in Germany and the United States, 1840–1914: A comparative perspective.” History of Education 35 (2): 173–88.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P., ed. (2004) New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tepe, Markus, and Vanhuysse, Pieter (2010) “Elderly bias, new social risks and social spending: Change and timing in eight programmes across four worlds of welfare, 1980–2003.” Journal of European Social Policy 20 (3): 217–34.Google Scholar
Thane, P., and Evans, T. (2012) Sinners, Scroungers, Saints: Unmarried Motherhood in Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timonen, V. (2004) “New risks—Are they still new for the Nordic welfare states?” in Taylor-Gooby, P. (ed.) New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 83–110.Google Scholar
Tunkelo, A. (1933) Naimisissa olevat naiset ammatinharjoittajina. Tilastokatsauksia N:o 10. Helsinki: Tilastollinen päätoimisto.Google Scholar
Von Oertzen, Christine, and Rietzschel, Almut (1997) “Comparing the post-war Germanies: Breadwinner ideology and women's employment in the divided nation, 1948–1970.” International Review of Social History 42 (S5): 175–96.Google Scholar
Ziemann, B., Wetzell, R., Schumann, D., and Brückweh, K. (2012) “Introduction: The scientization of the social in comparative perspective,” in Brückweh, K., Schumann, D., Wetzell, R., and Ziemann, B. (eds.) Engineering Society: The Scientification of the Social in Comparative Perspective, 1880–1990. Basingstoke: Palgrave: 1–40.Google Scholar