1. Marshall, T. H., “Citizenship and Social Class,” presented as the Alfred Marshall Lecture, Cambridge, 1949,Google Scholar in Marshall, T. H., Class, Citizenship, and Social Development: Essays by T. H. Marshall, ed. Lipset, Seymour Martin (Garden City, NY, 1965).Google Scholar For a skeptical view of Marshall, see Cohen, Miriam and Hanagan, Michael, “Politics, Industrialization, and Citizenship: Unemployment Policy in England, France and the United States, 1890–1950,” in Citizenship, Identity, and Social History, ed. Tilly, Charles, Supplement 3 of International Review of Social History (Cambridge, 1996), 91–129.Google Scholar

2. Tilly, Charles, “Citizenship, Identity and Social History,” in Citizenship, Identity and Social History, ed. Tilly, Charles, 8–9.Google Scholar

3. Orloff, Ann Shola, “Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States,” American Sociological Review 58 (1993):303–28;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFrader, Laura Levine, ‘Social Citizens without Citizenship: Working-Class Women and Social Policy in Interwar France,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 3 (1996):111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Fraser, Nancy, ‘From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘PostSocialist’ Age,” New Left Review 212 (1995):69;Google Scholar see also Fraser, , ‘Women, Welfare, and the Politics of Need Interpretation,” and “Struggle over Needs: Outline of a Socialist-Feminist Critical Theory of Late Capitalist Political Culture,” both in Nancy Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (Minneapolis, 1989)Google Scholar (a shorter version of “Struggle Over Needs” is in Women, the State, and Welfare, ed. Gordon, Linda [Madison, 1990], 199–223);Google ScholarFraser, Nancy, ‘Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation,” Tanner Lecture on Human Values, Stanford University (unpublished manuscript, 1996).Google Scholar

5. Fraser, , “Redistribution to Recognition,” 71–72.Google Scholar

6. Brubaker, Rogers, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, 1992);Google ScholarTilly, Charles, “The Emergence of Citizenship in France and Elsewhere,” in Citizenship, Identity and Social History, ed. Tilly, Charles, 223–36;Google ScholarRosenvallon, Pierre, Le sacre du suffrage universel en France (Paris, 1992).Google Scholar

7. Tarrow, Sidney, Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics (Cambridge, 1994), 3.Google Scholar He writes (65–66) that “[i]t was the expansion and consolidation of the national state that prodded the social movement into existence, and this was true all over the west, regardless of the degree of state centralization…the state not only penetrated Society—it integrated it. By producing policies intended for large populations and standardizing the procedures for citizens to use in their relations with authorities, states provided targets for mobilization and cognition frameworks in which challenging groups could compare their situations to more favored constitutencies and find allies. Expanding states attacked the corporate institutions of the past and tried to impede new kinds of association. But their activities provided a matrix in which new identities, new associations and broader claims developed. Within this matrix, citizens not only contested state expansion, but used the state as a fulcrum to advance their claims against others.”

8. Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1966);Google ScholarTilly, Charles, “Britain Creates the Social Movement,” in Social Conflict and the Political Order in Modern Britain, ed. Cronin, James E. and Schneer, Jonathan (New Brunswick, 1982), 221–51;Google ScholarTilly, Charles, Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834 (Cambridge, 1995).Google Scholar See also Harrison, Brian, “A Genealogy of Reform in Modern Britain,” in Anti-Slavery, Religion, and Reform: Essays in Memory of Roger Anstey, ed. Bolt, Christine and Drescher, Seymour (Dawson-Archon, 1980), 21–51.Google Scholar

9. Mill, Harriet Taylor, “The Enfranchisement of Women” (originally published in the Westminster Review, July, 1851), in Essays on Sex Equality, ed. Rossi, Alice S. (Chicago, 1970), 91–121, quotation 96.Google Scholar

10. Rosen, Andrew, Rise up Women! The Militant Campaign of the Women's Social and Political Union, 1903–1914 (London, 1974);Google ScholarLiddington, Jill and Norris, Jill, One Hand Tied Behind Us: The Rise of the Women's Suffrage Movement (London, 1978);Google ScholarEqual or Different: Women's Politics, 1800–1914, ed. Rendall, Jane (Oxford, 1987);Google ScholarRendall, Jane, The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britian, France and the United States, 1780–1860 (Chicago, 1985).CrossRefGoogle ScholarEvans, Richard J. published the first comparative study of women's movements: The Feminists: Women's Emancipation Movements in Europe, American and Australasia, 1840–1920 (London, 1979).Google Scholar

11. Evans, , The Feminists, 223.Google Scholar

12. Pedersen, Susan, Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France (Cambridge, 1993) compares the politics of the passage of family allowances and other social policies affecting families and mothers.Google Scholar For other comparisons of the passage of social policies see Koven, Seth and Michel, Sonya, “Womanly Duties: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, 1880–1920”, American Historical Review 95 (1990):1076–1108, which compares the organizations of, and policies promoted by, “maternalist” American, British, French, and German women and contrasts the results along a continuum between noncentralized, noninterventionist states (American, British) and the more politically centralized interventionist ones (German, French);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lewis, Jane, “Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes” Journal of European Social Policy 2 (1995):159–73, which compares Ireland, Britain, France, and Sweden according to the strength of the “male breadwinner model.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Graves, Pamela, “An Experiment in Women-Centered Socialism: Labour Women in England,” in Women and Socialism/Socialism and Women: Europe between the World Wars, ed. Gruber, Helmut and Graves, Pamela (forthcoming).Google Scholar

14. Lewis, , “Gender and Welfare Regimes.” From this point on, I invite the reader to observe without my comments the ways in which rights of redistribution and recognition appear—constantly, separately or intertwined—in the history of women's citizenship.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., 164.

16. Graves, , in “An Experiment,” provides an important addendum to Pedersen's argument by showing that many Labour party women, taking exception to the male Labourite position, adopted the postwar feminist position supporting family allowances.Google Scholar

17. Jenson, Jane, “The Modern Women's Movement in Italy, France, and Great Britain: Differences in Life Cycles,” Comparative Social Research 5 (1982):141–375, quotation 365.Google Scholar

18. Hause, Steven C., with Kenney, Anne R., Women's Suffrage and Social Politics in the French Third Republic (Princeton, 1984);Google ScholarBard, Christine, Les filles de Marianne: Histoire des feminismes, 1914–1940 (Paris, 1995), quotation 359.Google Scholar For the missed connection between socialist and bourgeois women supporting women's rights see Sowerwine, Charles, “The Socialist Women's Movement from 1850 to 1940,” in Becoming Visible: Women in European History, ed. Bridenthal, Renate, Koonz, Claudia, and Stuard, Susan (Boston, 1987), 399–426.Google Scholar For greater detail on the working out of socialist politics and women's issues (including information about initiatves at the local level) see Gruber, Helmut, “French Women in the Crossfire of Class, Sex, Maternity, and Citizenship,” in Women and Socialism/Socialism and Women, ed. Gruber, Helmut and Graves, Pamela (forthcoming).Google Scholar

19. Pedersen, , Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State; Lewis, “Gender and Welfare Regimes.”Google Scholar

20. Jenson, Jane, “Both Friend and Foe: Women and State Welfare,” in Becoming Visible, ed. Bridenthal, Koonz, and Stuard, 535–56, argues that because the French feminist movement was not adequately concerned with the state it was unable to defend women against the economic restructuring that began after 1974, including greater recourse to women as part-time workers (hence eligible for fewer benefits).Google Scholar However, as shown by Kaplan, Gisela, Contemporary Western European Feminism (New York, 1992), 125,Google Scholar France had one of the lowest rates of female part-time work among western European countries (fifteen percent in 1983); this as compared to forty-six percent in Sweden, forty-three percent in Denmark, thirty-eight percent in England, and twenty-four percent in Germany. Women are now a majority of part-time workers in the United States, as reported in Tilly, Chris, Half a Job: Bad and Good Part-Time Jobs in a Changing Labor Market (Philadelphia, 1996).Google Scholar For the European Community in 1991, Chiara Saraceno shows that France (at 23.8 percent) continued to be below the median in terms of women part-time workers. Germany (30.6 percent) and the United Kingdom (44.2 percent) were above the median, as was Denmark (41. 5 percent). Saraceno, , “Gender and Europe: National Differences, Resources, and Impediments to the Construction of a Common Interest by European Women”, in European Integration as a Social Process: Historical Perspectives, 1850–1995, ed. Jytte Klausen and Louise A. Tilly (forthcoming).Google Scholar According to Trat, Josette, “Autumn 1995: A Social Storm Blows over France”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society, 3 (1996):215 (citing Le Monde in June 1996), thirty percent of French women worked part-time, compared to five percent of men. France's proportion of woment doing part-time work is edging up, but it continues at the low end of the more developed countries. The Mediterranean countries have the lowest rates of women part-time workers.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMitchell, Deborah and Garrett, Geoffrey, “Women and the Welfare State in the Era of Global Markets,” Social Politics 3 (1996): 185–94, provide further evidence in an analysis of the effects of globalization on women as workers of fourteen countries (including the four discussed here) based on OECD data from 1960–1990. This aggregate analysis, which does not look at differences among countries, finds that levels of trade with non-OECD countries and the extent of capital mobility (both indicators of globalization) are correlated with increased state expenditure for child benefits. At the same time, the analysis suggests that the level of government expenditure on child benefits has decreased, which the authors suggest could be related to governments shifting child care costs back on families via strategies such as dual wage earning in households as wives enter the labor market. (Inadequate data make it impossible to test this.) This combination of findings may be related to increased part-time work by women who might not otherwise have been employed. Such a household-level response to the problem in the United States and Europe does not bode well for women workers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Jenson, Jane, “The Liberation and New Rights for French Women,” in Behind the Lines: Gender and the Two World Wars ed. Higonnet, Margaret Randolph, Jenson, Jane, Michel, Sonya, and Weitz, Margaret Collins (New Haven, 1987), 272–84.Google Scholar Jenson points out that in the early postwar debates there was no “broad discussion of the real needs of women… the French welfare state, founded on family policy, shored up and cemented a family structure in which wives and children were dealt with as minors and appendages of men” (281). See also Jenson, Jane, “Changing Discourse, Changing Agendas: Political Rights and Reproductive Policies in France”, in The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunity, and Public Policy, ed. Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod and Mueller, Carol McClurg (Philadelphia, 1987), 64–88. Catholic support declined sharply when questions of the legalization of abortion, government support of birth control clinics, or sexual freedom were addressed in the 1960s and 1970s.Google Scholar

22. Lewis, , “Gender and Welfare”; Linda Hantrais, “Women, Work, and Welfare in France,” in Women and Social Policies in Europe: Work, Family and the State, ed. Lewis, Jane (Aldershot, 1993), 116–37.Google ScholarJenson, Jane, “Introduction:Some Consequences of Economic and Political Restructuring and Readjustment”, Social Politics 3 (1996):1–11, sees increased female part-time work as a consequence of French adjustment to global restructuring; see also note 20 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Norris, Pippa, Politics and Sexual Equality: The Comparative Position of Women in Western Democracies (Boulder, 1987), 116;Google ScholarJenson, Jane and Sineau, Mariette, Mitterand et les Françaises: Un rendez-vous manqué (Paris, 1996), 371.Google Scholar

24. Kaplan, , Western European Feminism, 164; Norris, Politics and Sexual Equality, 67.Google Scholar

25. Dex, Shirley and Walters, Patricia, “Women's Occupational Status in Britain, France and the USA: Explaining the Difference”, Industrial Relations Journal 20 (1989):203–12. On the comparative rates of part-time work among women workers in western Europe, see note 20 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Jenson, Jane and Sineau, Mariette, “Le Mitterandisme: Espoirs et échecs d'une nouvelle synthèse républicaine pour les femmes,” French Politics and Society 14 (1996):39–49;Google ScholarJenson, and Sineau, , Mitterand et les Françaises, 355–58.Google Scholar

27. Trat, , “Autumn 1995.”Google Scholar

28. Kaplan, , Western European Feminism, 103–4.Google Scholar

29. Evans, , The Feminists, 110;Google Scholar see also Hackett, Amy, “Feminism and Liberalism in Wilhelmine Germany, 1890–1918,” in Liberating Women's History: Theoretical and Critical Essays, ed. Carroll, Berenice A. (Urbana, 1976), 127–36.Google Scholar

30. See Bridenthal, Renate and Koonz, Claudia, “Beyond Kinder, Küche, Kirche: Weimar Women in Politics and Work,” in Liberating Women's History, ed. Carroll, 301–29;Google Scholar and von Saldern, Adelheid, “Modernization as Challenge: Perceptions and Endeavors of German Social Democratic Women,” in Women and Socialism/Socialism and Women, ed. Gruber, and Graves, (forthcoming).Google Scholar

31. Von Saldern, , “Modernization as Challenge”;Google ScholarGrossman, Atina, “German Communism and New Women: Dilemmas and Contradictions”, in Women and Socialism/Socialism and Women, ed. Gruber, and Graves, (forthcoming).Google Scholar

32. As cited by von Saldern in “Modernization as Challenge”: Wickert, Christl, “Von der Hausarbeit zur Sozialarbeit: Sozialdemokratische Frauenpolitik und ‘Arbeiter wohlfahrt,’ in Berlin, 1919–1933” in Studien zur Arbeiterbewegung und Arbeiterkultur in Berlin, ed. Gläessner, Gert-Joachim et al. , (Berlin, 1989), 119.Google Scholar

33. Koonz, Claudia, “The Fascist Solution to the Woman Question in Italy and Germany,” in Becoming Visible, ed. Bridenthal, , Koonz, , and Stuard, , 58–59.Google Scholar

34. Ostner, Ilona, “Slow Motion: Women, Work and the Family in Germany”, in Work, Family, and the State, ed. Lewis, Jane (Aldershot, 1993), 92–115, quotation 92;Google ScholarYoung, Brigitte, “The German State and Feminist Politics: A Double Gender Marginalization”, Social Politics 2 (1996): 159–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. See also Ferree, Myra Marx, “Equality and Autonomy: Feminist Politics in the United States and West Germany,” in Women's Movements, ed. Katzenstein, and Mueller, , 172–95.Google Scholar

36. Ostner, Ilona, “Back to the Fifties: Gender and Welfare in Unified Germany”, Social Politics 1 (1994): 32–59, quotation 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. The account that follows is based primarily on two chapters in Tilly, Louise A. and Gurin, Patricia, eds., Women, Politics, and Change (New York, 1990);Google ScholarTilly, and Gurin, , “Introduction,” 3–34; and Suzanne Lebsock, “Women and American Politics”, 35–62.Google Scholar

38. Evans, The Feminists, 227, citing Paulson, Ross Evans, Women's Suffrage and Prohibition: A Comparative Study of Equality and Social Control (Brighton, 1973)Google Scholar and Gusfield, Joseph R., Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement (Urbana, 1963).Google Scholar Feminist historians such as Gordon, Linda, Heroes of their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence, Boston, 1880–1960 (New York, 1988) have demonstrated that the kind of social control argument made by Paulson and Gusfield needs to be modified by studying popular resistance to pressure from above.Google Scholar

39. See Lemons, J. Stanley, The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in the 1920s (Urbana, 1973);Google ScholarO'Neill, William L., Everyone Was Brave: The Rise and Fall of Feminism in America (Chicago, 1969).Google Scholar

40. Among the other important projects of socially aware middle-class women were the National Consumers' League and the National Women's Trade Union League.Google Scholar

41. Quoted in Gordon, Linda, Pitied but Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890–1935 (New York, 1994), 60;Google Scholar see also Mink, Gwendolyn, The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917–1942 (New York, 1995).Google Scholar

42. See Cott, Nancy F., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, 1987).Google Scholar

43. Nelson, Barbara Jean, “The Gender, Race and Class Origins of Early Welfare Policy and the Welfare State: A Comparison of Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” in Women, Politics, and Change, ed. Tilly and Gurin, 413–35; Gordon, Pitied but not Entitled, 254.Google Scholar

44. See Jo Freeman, , “From Protection to Equal Opportunity: The Revolution in Women's Legal Status”, in Women, Politics, and Change, ed. Tilly and Gurin, 457–81; and Jane Mansbridge, “Organizing for the ERA: Cracks in the Façade of Unity,”Google Scholar in Ibid., 323–38.

45. Freeman, , “From Protection to Equal Opportunity.”Google Scholar

46. Hernes, Helga Maria, “Women and the Welfare State: The Transition from Private to Public Dependence,” in Women and the State: The Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private, ed. Sassoon, Anne Showstack (London, 1992), quotations 76.Google Scholar

47. Young, , “The German State and Feminist Politics”, 175.Google Scholar