In this blog, Katherine Weiss discusses citizenship of women and infants in wartime, and the role of maternity in ensuring state perpetuity.

When you think of the word citizen, who or what comes to mind? It is often not a baby. Yet, during World War I, many countries heralded babies, specifically male babies, as citizens, and more importantly, future citizen-soldiers. Indeed, it was during World War I that the question of citizenship-in-wartime first became crucially important, as civilians were mobilized for the first time en masse. 

Citizenship was most often and importantly coded as male, even as women had recently earned the right to vote in Australia. While in some cases being a citizen meant one was automatically drafted, in other places, non-citizens could earn citizenship by enlisting to fight. Citizenship also took on newfound meaning as politicians, social commentators, and women’s rights reformers debated wartime roles and responsibilities and who could be considered citizens– or future citizens. 

For nations like France and Australia, which had been particularly concerned with nation-building since 1870 and feared national decline as they looked to rising powers like Germany and Japan, babies seemed to be the key to the stability and future of the state. This raised an interesting conundrum: If babies, as citizens, were the key to state security given the view that they represented future soldier-citizens, what ought to be made of the role of mothers, the one’s producing these future citizens?

Woman’s Citizenship

While the concerns about population and nation-building were similar in France and Australia, the narratives took a different shape. This was due in part to differing levels of citizenship for women in the two countries. Since white women achieved suffrage in Australia in 1902, discussions centred around babies as assets – as future citizens.

 However, with no voting rights for women in France, French feminists debated whether motherhood could be considered women’s form of citizenship. If mothers were to provide the state with children, then the state should help to provide for the family. Mothers took this opportunity to demand state support in the form of financial aid. One woman, disturbed by her plight during the war, pleaded her case for aid to a government official in a letter from the Paris Archives, questioning: ‘this is how you help mothers and you demand repopulation?’

Across Europe and the British Empire, the idea of a state remuneration for mothers predated the war. Historian Anne Cova argued in Maternity and the rights of Women in France (1997) that French feminists sought to define maternity as a social function, and that women in turn should be granted all the accompanying citizenship rights of fulfilling their duty to the nation. 

War gave these conversations new life, giving fuel to those who believed mothers should be recognized for what they ‘provided’ to the state: citizens.

These conversations were further complicated with the establishment of separation allowances, or military allowances during World War I. Soldiers in France received a 1 franc 25 centimes daily allowance for dependents and an additional .50 centimes for each child. In Australia, a wife could receive 19 s 6d with an additional 3s for each child under 14. Yet, the separation allowance sought only to ensure a soldier’s family was cared for. Others continued to advocate for a maternity bonus, which specifically recognized the service that mothers provided to the state – babies.

An endowment for mothers would serve not only as recognition of their service to the state but also as an incentive for other women to have children and support the nation. Some suggested a one-time bonus upon the birth of a child, while others imagined more ambitious compensation through a weekly payment. In 1916, an author in Australia’s The Evening Echo, argued that ‘though the very existence of the State depends upon child-life, it has hitherto declined to recognize its obligation to those who provide it with children.’ The author proposed a 5/per child grant per week until the child could earn its own living. 

As the war dragged on, men in both countries died by the thousands. Politicians and social commentators in France and Australia became increasingly concerned with how the states could “repopulate” after the war. Infants took on a greater focus in each nation’s internal dialogue, as each state sought to reduce infant mortality rates and ensure that each child born could reach adulthood and fulfill their duties of citizenship. A focus on infant and child welfare reached a peak in 1917 and 1918 in Australia with ‘’Baby Weeks.” 

Babies as Citizens

In October, 1917, Perth’s The Daily News, advertised the upcoming Child Welfare Exhibition and National Baby Week Exhibition. ‘Every baby is a matter of national concern, a national asset. Its parent is simply a trustee for the State.’ While programming included events like baby pageants and lectures on mothercraft, citizenship also served as a featured theme throughout the week. Monday’s address included a lecture on ‘The New Civic Spirit’ and ‘Education and Citizenship’ while a ‘Citizens’ Conference’ would take place on Tuesday. 

For years, infant welfare organisations had utilised the slogan: ‘Babies are the best immigrants.’ This slogan encapsulated the belief that the only new citizens Australians wanted were babies, especially those born to white Australian mothers.

During the peak of war, from Perth to Melbourne and Sydney, Baby Weeks in 1917 and 1918 demonstrated even further how important infants had become for securing Australia’s future. The Baby Week event organizers and event commentators made no secret of how they viewed babies: as assets. 

The Woman, a journal of the conservative Australian Women’s National League published a series of articles in 1918 on Baby Week, utilizing the slogan “Mothers are Nation Builders” at the end of each page in their section on Baby Week. An article titled “Save the Babies: How to Raise Our Little Nation Builders” encapsulates the sentiment that babies represented the future of the nation. 

Wartime crystallised the importance of encouraging maternity and safeguarding infant life. In each nation’s view, babies held the key to ensuring the perpetuity of the state because of what they represented as citizens: future productive members of the state and future soldiers. 

Katherine Weiss is a fourth-year PhD Candidate in History at Ohio State University. Her dissertation examines the experience of motherhood in Australia and France during World War I. Her work is supported by the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and the International Research Center of the Historical de la Grande Guerre.

Copyright remains with individual authors who grant VIDA holding a perpetual, world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce and promote content. For permission to re-publish any VIDA blog post, in whole or in part, please contact the managing editors at auswhn@gmail.com.au