Three kinds of preindustrial household formation system in historical Eastern Europe: A challenge to spatial patterns of the European family

Abstract

In their modelling and classificatory ventures western scholars have usually mistakenly included family forms in historical Eastern Europe by induction in well-established generalizations about Russian or Balkan populations. At the same time, well into the late 1990s, most of Eastern European historians have shown no interest in studying domestic groups in socio-historical perspective. This article attempts to restate that picture through a thorough analysis of an unprecedented collection of historical household data for the late eighteenth-century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the largests political entities in Europe of that time. Through an application of a variety of methodologies three regional family patterns have been distinguished on the historical Polish territories, their main characteristics described and then juxtaposed against the major features of paradigmatic examples of the 'Eastern European family type'. The results indicate that the existing models of household systems in preindustrial Europe are far too rigid to meet the diversity of residential patterns of the Eastern European serfs. Analysis of the data set on spatially, culturally and socioeconomically diverse regions has also facilitated a preliminary identification of the factors shaping these family systems. The data presented here suggests that the conventional wisdom regarding the institutional mechanisms of the Eastern European manorialism of the second serfdom as sufficient to create a homogenous pattern of family residence must be seriously questioned. In particular, what must be meticulously revised is a sweeping generalization still in practice that posits a functional link between coercive forms of labor control and complex household structures among peasant subjects.

Patterns of spatial proximity and the timing and spacing of bearing children

“…Fertility-related norms and the ways in which families are organized are not independent of another. They are part of a wider system of organizational principles that relate to regional patterns of household and family formation, what we call family systems (Hajnal 1982;Reher 1998;Skinner 1997;Faragó 1998;Szołtysek 2008). Family systems have been identified as a useful concept to explain regional variation in fertility (Burch and Gendell 1970;Hajnal 1982;Dyson and Moore 1983;Das Gupta 1997;Veleti 2001;Mason 2001;Neven 2002;Delger 2003;Dalla-Zuanna and Micheli 2004;Rotering and Bras 2015) and the persistence of regional demographic traits (Kok 2009(Kok , 2014.…”

Historical family systems and the great European divide: the invention of the Slavic East

“…Although Hajnal's (as well as Laslett's) works are recognised as formative studies that have made a lasting impact on the field of research, they have, over the years, also been challenged, and have undergone a number of transformations. However, despite having been subjected to severe criticism over the last two decades (Kertzer 1991;Farago 1998;Goody 1996;Plakans and Wetherell 2001;Szołtysek, 2007Szołtysek, , 2008aSzołtysek, , 2008b of Graz has popularised the notion of a "Hajnal-Mitterauer line" (Kaser 1997).…”

“…Modern family and household history has yet to capitalize more fully on Conze's two substantial insights, namely that (1) agrarian laws and constitutions have a profound impact on rural populations, and on population dynamics; and that (2) historical patterns of settlement provide important clues for the understanding of prevailing family and household structures. 5 Description of the sources used by Conze is given in: Conze 1940, 6 The character of the data used in this research and its historical-socioeconomic context were described at length elsewhere (see Szołtysek, 2008aSzołtysek, , 2008b. Central Europe should be revised.…”

Natural population movement and marriage restrictions and hindrances in Styria in the 17th to 19th centuries

“…and last, but not least, the 'Hajnal-line' and European marriage pattern(s) (cf. Ehmer, 1991;Devos & Kennedy, 1999;Fertig, 2000Fertig, , 2003Gehrmann, 2001;Engelen & Wolf, 2005;Szoltysek, 2007Szoltysek, , 2008. The critics (cf.…”