Liberating Economics: Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work, and Globalization

Chapter 8. The Liberated Economy

8. The Liberated Economy Mainstream economists claim that their conceptual building blocks are objective, value-free, and scienti‹c. We disagree; the fundamental categories of economic analysis are not neutral with respect to existing patterns of social subordination and power.1 The concepts of, for example, rationality and scarcity, maximization and equilibrium, commodities and exploitation, embody historically speci‹c visions of normative masculinity, femininity, whiteness, and heterosexual orientation that are particular to the West. Indeed, the establishment of Anglo-European world dominance depended upon the creation of new patterns of social hierarchy and the intensi‹cation of old patterns of domination. Feminist economists begin with this observation, a starting point that would not raise an eyebrow in philosophy, sociology, or the history of science . But those who practice mainstream economics deny the historical speci‹city of the discipline’s basic concepts. Instead, mainstream economists believe that the central organizing categories of economics are a mirror of nature. Dare we point out that the commodities of everyday life do not roll off assembly lines with equilibrium prices stamped on their foreheads ? Nor does a nation’s income split itself in two, with wages on the one side and pro‹ts on the other, with the ebb and ›ow of the tides. And sunspots do not cause business cycles.2 If economic concepts do not mirror the natural world, then these concepts must be socially constructed—in which case gender and sexuality, like race and class, matter. Throughout this book we have stressed the connections between social constructs that assign people to particular types of work and women’s subordinate economic status. We certainly hope that no readers have interpreted our advocacy for women as a call for turning the tables on men. To the contrary, our commitment is to a freer, more just world, one in which women and men regardless of social or geographic location can shape their 128 destinies by sharing power and responsibility in the workplace, the home, and the government.3 But as discrimination and gender bias prevent women from exercising their fair share of power and responsibility, they continue to suffer disproportionately. The persistence of this economic disadvantage underscores the need for continued feminist activism and scholarship . Even as women’s participation in paid labor has increased, the feminization of labor on a global scale means that work continues to be segregated by gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality. Simultaneous with the expansion of women’s participation in paid labor, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in income inequality in both developed and developing nations. The women and men who hold good jobs—whether as knowledge workers (workers in information technologies) in the “new” economy, or as executives and managers in traditional industries, or as professionals in the service sector—are well compensated for their labor, while other, poorly paid workers—male as well as female—assemble products or provide services necessary for the daily functioning of highly paid workers.4 Yes, women do the majority of this supportive work. Why? Precisely because this work is feminized: it is ›exible, poorly paid, monotonous, and low status. How ironic is it when social conservatives blame feminism for the erosion of masculinity when it is actually the very economic forces they celebrate— free markets, free trade, and globalization—that undermine the conditions of work and threaten all workers with the specter of feminization. Toward an Inclusive, Egalitarian Division of Labor The con›uence of representations de‹nes some work as women’s and other work as men’s. Such coding is largely, but not wholly, an effect of culture, discourse, and ideology. Generally speaking, the types of work associated with reproduction are precisely those viewed as natural, unskilled, and less than. At the same time, positions in the division of labor largely, but not completely, determine incomes. Those fortunate enough to match the characteristics needed to claim masculinity, whiteness, heterosexuality, and other markers of class privilege are assigned the most privileged positions in the division of labor, and consequently they receive high incomes, status, and power (although being a white male does not guarantee economic success). It is neither whiteness nor maleness per se that is rewarded; it is rather that positionality vis-à-vis the social division of labor determines The Liberated Economy 129 how much of society’s assets a person can acquire. Yet as we have argued, social location is itself an effect of representation...