Download (14Mb) - VUIR - Victoria University

etween subsistence and near starvation. Within the home, distinctions between
domestic and other productive work were blurred, women having housework and
nurturing roles as weU as the responsibility for animal care, marketing of dairy produce
and crop production. Where the family ovmed a business, she was also mvolved in its
daUy operation. The men worked alongside their wives, preparing food-stuffs and
providing fuel for the stone or fireplace. In this sense, the distinction between domestic
and productive work was irrelevant, a sense of common effort and mutual benefit
underlying any division of labour on the basis of sex.
This same view of the family as constituting the key unit of production was
taught to the children who, from an early age, were encouraged to contribute to the
family's productivity. By performing simple but essential tasks, such as minding the
younger children, weeding the vegetable patch, frightening birds away from the crops,
helping to scatter the new season's seed and stirring Xhe polenta pot, they eased the
burden on other family members. Even difficuh tasks, such as wine-making
(traditionally the domain of the more experienced) called for their help: to harvest and
transport the fhiit, to join the adults in the stomping barrel and to clean up at the end
of the day (see above Vanina section p, 279), The 'family', as constmcted by
Daylesford's ItaUan speakers, was a co-operative unit under the direction of the father
or male head ~ a patriarchy, says Cheda, tied to 'una mentalitd tradizionale' (a
traditional mentality).^ It prospered in Australia largely because of its ability to utUise
and marshall an effective and cohesive work-force from among its own members.
382