But this is only part of the story. Family plays a role in Jessica‟s meanings of money in a way other than the structural „family category‟ she fits within as a single, non- earning, welfare recipient mother of five. Jessica also talks openly and at length about her childhood family and marriage history as peppered with physical and financial abuses. Her low-income family status may provide one thread of experience through which to talk about money, but her history of inequality as a child, a wife, and a woman provides another.
As a child, Jessica lived amongst physically abusive men and a „controlling mother‟. When describing her mother, money enters the picture immediately, and she says, „I don‟t know what values mum has except money‟. Jessica discloses her mother‟s wealthy European childhood, and subsequent marriage and migration into a poor,
56 rural Tasmanian existence. Jessica says that her mother blamed her and her siblings for her hard, poor life, and that she now expects her children to give her everything - including money - even when Jessica can‟t afford to buy things for her own family. Taught as girls they would become „nothing‟, Jessica viewed marriage as a „way out‟ of her childhood home. However when married at the age of sixteen, „life was very much the same‟. Her „controlling‟ husband hit her, prevented social contact with others, managed all her income, and forbade her to buy new clothes or meat for herself or her family (except himself and their son). In addition, her experiences were mostly „hidden‟ from public view. In her study of finance within marriage and co- habiting relationships, Singh notes that there is a „reality of unequal incomes‟ in marriage that is not addressed at all when a marriage is current:
Married and cohabiting couples do not discuss „equality‟, „power‟ and „control‟. Where there is discernible difference in financial status between the two partners, this helps mask the gap between the ideology of equal partnership and the reality of one partner‟s financial dependence.
(Singh and Lindsay 1996: 68)
Jessica lived in an unequal relationship for over twenty years. After a particularly severe incident of physical abuse, Jessica separated from her husband with the help of her family and a local welfare agency. Left with debts she is still paying off, Jessica was afraid she wouldn‟t even be able to put food on the table for the children. Since then, living has been financially difficult and fraught with worry.
However, despite these financial tensions and strains, Jessica‟s experience is similar to that of other women reported in large-scale studies investigating the place of stress in the lives of single mothers. These women are typically found to manage and cope with such stress in active and self-reliant ways (Olson and Banyard 1993: 54;
Richards 1989). For example, while it cannot be ignored that Jessica doesn‟t like money, she also recognises that she now manages money well and that she is learning about money fast. She notes she has had to „get smart‟ and „think quick‟ when it comes to money problems. For instance, she helps out her aging neighbour who gives her meat in exchange.
57 Jessica also refuses to abuse the welfare system. She sees family and friends taking advantage of social services and declares that she wants a „clean nose‟ (a clear conscience) and the knowledge that she can manage without financial dishonesty: „I won‟t go down that path‟ she says. In saying this Jessica reveals that she values financial independence and self-reliance. For example, she is very cautious about relationships where financial support is an issue lest she become „caged up again‟. She intends to pay back all her debts in full, and doesn‟t accept charity (she would not even accept biscuits I bought to share for afternoon tea). Being independent also gives her a chance to study and hopefully one day work so that perhaps there will come a time when she doesn‟t have to struggle so much financially. This means being able to pay bills on time (or before) and even perhaps save some money. Most important to Jessica is that she teaches her children that if they stick at it and work hard, they will find jobs and won‟t become reliant on government welfare.
This part of Jessica‟s story highlights a number of further factors at play in the meanings Jessica gives to money. First, it is evident that it is not only structurally defined family status that shapes personal meanings of money: subjective family experiences and histories also play a significant role. This is because Jessica‟s understanding of money as something she doesn‟t like draws on experiences far more complex than poverty realised through the event of divorce. Her mother‟s life-long bitterness over wealth and opportunities lost and a husband‟s litany of financial exploitations are just a few ways in which ongoing experiences of inequality have contributed towards and defined the meaning of money for Jessica:
„And then I got married, and all he had was bills, bills, and always bought things and went away on trips he did. And…we just had to keep picking up the pieces and keep going. So I have very little faith in money. I don‟t like it.‟
It is also evident that despite her family status or category, subjective family experiences and history shapes Jessica‟s view of money. Even though previously married to a working male whose added income most probably kept the family income well above a low-income status, the reality of Jessica‟s „hidden‟ circumstance meant she nevertheless experienced the realities of living a low-income lifestyle
58 within the nuclear family. For example, Jessica was also required to pay off the family car herself through the children‟s benefits. Thus, despite the fact that
statistically the family had money, this wasn‟t the reality for Jessica or her daughters as staple items such as food, clothing and transport were withheld or implicated in a form of financial deprivation.