분류없음 2016/09/25 04:47

*interesting paper



The result was a crisis on at least two levels: on the one hand, a crisis of social reproduction among the poor and working classes, whose capacities for sustenance and replenishment were stretched to breaking point; on the other, a moral panic among the middle classes, who were scandalized by what they understood as the ‘destruction of the family’ and the ‘de-sexing’ of proletarian women. So dire was this situation that even such astute critics as Marx and Engels mistook this early head-on conflict between economic production and social reproduction for the final word. Imagining that capitalism had entered its terminal crisis, they believed that, as it eviscerated the working-class family, the system was also eradicating the basis of women’s oppression.7 But what actually happened was just the reverse: over time, capitalist societies found resources for managing this contradiction—in part by creating ‘the family’ in its modern restricted form; by inventing new, intensified meanings of gender difference; and by modernizing male domination. p.7


...[T]he broad tendency of state-managed capitalism in the countries of the core was to valorize the heteronormative, male-breadwinner, female-homemaker model of the gendered family. Public investment in social reproduction reinforced these norms. In the us, the welfare system took a dualized form, divided into stigmatized poor relief for (‘white’) women and children lacking access to a male wage, on the one hand, and respectable social insurance for those constructed as ‘workers’, on the other. p.13



All of them—including anti-racism, multiculturalism, lgbt liberation, and ecology—spawned market-friendly neoliberal currents. But the feminist trajectory proved especially fateful, given capitalism’s longstanding entanglement of gender and social reproduction. p.15


...Northern feminists often describe their focus as the ‘balance between family and work’.31 But struggles over social reproduction encompass much more: community movements for housing, healthcare, food security and an unconditional basic income; struggles for the rights of migrants, domestic workers and public employees; campaigns to unionize service-sector workers in for-profit nursing homes, hospitals and child-care centres; struggles for public services such as day care and elder care, for a shorter working week, for generous paid maternity and parental leave. Taken together, these claims are tantamount to the demand for a massive reorganization of the relation between production and reproduction: for social arrangements that could enable people of every class, gender, sexuality and colour to combine social-reproductive activities with safe, interesting and well-remunerated work.  pp.17-18



"~가족 중 누군가는 하루 12시간 씩 자본가에게 착취당하는 대신, 가족 중 다른 누군가는 역시 그에 맞먹는 시간 동안 밥하고 빨래하고 자녀 키우는 그림자 노동으로 임금노동자를 지원해야 한다. ‘가족’이라는 이름 아래 노동자의 가정은, 노동자는 노동으로 착취당하고, 전업주부는 노동자를 지원하는 것으로 착취당하는 이중 착취 시스템에서 살아야 한다.

일리치가 보기에 이 그림자 노동 시스템이 더 악랄한 이유는 자본이 그림자 노동에 보수를 지급하지 않는 것은 물론, 심지어 그림자 노동으로부터 이윤을 벌어들이기 때문이었다. 자본주의 사회는 그림자 노동자마저 경쟁으로 내몬다. “엄마라면 애들을 더 잘 키워야 해!” “가정주부라면 남편을 더 잘 내조해야 해!” 이런 식으로 말이다.

그림자 노동에 종사하는 사람들은 “더 잘 도와야 한다”는 강박관념 탓에 더 나은 돌봄노동을 위해 돈을 쓴다. 요리를 더 잘하기 위해 요리학원을 다니고, 아이들 숙제를 더 잘 도와주기 위해 숙제 도우미를 고용한다. 길거리에 널려있는 보습학원들? 일리치의 눈에 이런 것들 전부 다 “자식을 더 잘 키워야 해!”라는 돌봄노동 경쟁 구도에서 자본이 이윤을 빼앗아 먹는 착취 구조일 뿐이다."

this is a great one. stunning!



* speechless article

2016/09/25 04:47 2016/09/25 04:47
tags :
Trackback 0 : Comment 0

Trackback Address ::

Write a comment

◀ PREV : [1] : ... [51] : [52] : [53] : [54] : [55] : [56] : [57] : [58] : [59] : ... [401] : NEXT ▶