In Die Produktion besonderer Arbeitskräfte (the production of special workers), Jessica Richter explores domestic service as part of the story of the development of the labor sector from the late nineteenth century to the interwar period in Cisleithanian Austria. The focus of the book is the First Republic. Richter’s research comes under the umbrella of the project headed by Sigrid Wadauer at the University of Vienna titled “The Production of Work,” and this book clearly draws influence from Wadauer’s studies of how the meaning of the term “work” has changed over time. Current-day ideas of work, according to Wadauer, are historically very young and have their origins in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this context, Richter argues that the work of housemaids who lived and worked in their employers’ households posed a unique challenge. How was their service to be understood? Were they wage workers or dependents in their employers’ household? These questions are reflected in the debates over labor that took place at the turn of the century. Richter convincingly demonstrates that depending on the answer to these questions, different demands were put upon different types of domestic servants and different regulations arose. Richter’s underlying thesis here is that domestic service is also a form of work, and that persons in this sector should receive the same legal rights as those in other sectors of the workforce.

The book is divided into six chapters, including the conclusion. The introductory chapter describes the author’s approach and background literature on domestic service. Here, Richter draws upon the work of Pierre Bourdieu, Loic Wacquant, and Samar Farage, who have argued that the universalization of a particular culture or language results in the dispossession of others. Accordingly, Richter points out that women had very little share in the universal legitimate forms of livelihoods before World War I, and a vast majority worked in semi-skilled and unskilled labor positions. Domestic service was one such sector. Richter puts forth her contribution by emphasizing that “in the research literature, disputes about domestic service has so far only been examined in terms of spectacular changes in the law … however, the diversity of conflicting practices and those involved in the disputes have not yet been examined” (35). Chapter 2 describes the political aspects of the legal rights for servants, providing details of the organizations that fought for the legal rights for servants and the Law for Domestic Helpers that came into effect in 1920. Richter points out that “despite the limitations in rights for maidservants, the regulation of housemaids … became increasingly the task of the state since the turn of the century, but especially the interwar period” (132).

In chapter 3, the author focuses on the various measures taken by the state as well as servant organizations for placing domestic helpers. Richter argues that there were diverse options available to housemaids to find a placement, including those that were state-controlled, those mediated by private agencies, and by relying on personal contacts. While domestic helpers used any means they could to adapt to the peculiarities of working in a household, some politicians used this against them, leading to the state ignoring the plight of unemployed housemaids. The author extends this argument in chapter 4 by examining proceedings at the administrative courts and the Supreme Court. In these proceedings, the definition of a “household” was reformulated and so were the criteria for distinguishing servants and other workers. Particularly well analyzed in this chapter is the case of the housekeeper Ludmilla K, where Richter demonstrates how the courts dealt with the question of whether a caretaker was a servant. Because of such reformulations, housemaids were constantly discriminated against and their “disadvantages were legitimized” (255).

In chapter 5, Richter uses heterogenous samples and sources such as personal testimonies, political publications, and popular literature to examine disputes surrounding domestic service. She also explores the various ways of organizing life in a household or on the farm. Doing so, she demonstrates how certain practices formed a hierarchy. Richter points out that for many rural servants, “moving to a new position was like entering another world: everything was new and unusual” (389). Because moving involved adapting to a new environment and settling down took time, servants always found themselves at the bottom of the household or farm hierarchy. This aspect of household service was particularly difficult to resolve, and consequently it was hard to professionalize household service. While the arguments in this chapter are interesting and there is a wealth of information, it is strenuous to follow the author’s analysis of the various individual case studies. More concise explanations would have helped the reader.

In conclusion, Richter argues that the more professional work is endowed with promise of income, rights, and prestige, the more other kinds of livelihood appear deviant and deficient. Domestic service, which is predominantly made up of women, is one such livelihood. Increasingly, as labor gets hierarchized, the male professional finds himself at the top of the ladder, and the female housemaid finds herself at the bottom. The fight to secure equal rights and prestige for all forms of work thus continues. Replete with ample statistical data and case studies, any scholar who is interested in the history of labor, history of women, and indeed the history of women’s labor will find this book a must read.