Seeking to capture the multi-layered, contradictory, nature of subjectivities and social positions through a framework which insists upon the complex, dynamic nature of the social, intersectionality feminism has inspired Marxist-Feminists to push the social-reproduction feminism paradigm beyond a narrow preoccupation with gender/class relations. Yet even its most politically radical articulations stop short of fully theorising the integrative logic they espouse. This article explores the roots of this under-theorisation, and suggests that a more fully integrative ontology informs certain formulations of social-reproduction feminism. In understanding the social as constituted by practical human activity whose object (the social and natural world) is organised capitalistically, social-reproduction feminism highlights the dialectical relationship between the capitalist whole and its differentiated parts. The challenge for Marxist-Feminism is to embrace this dialectical approach while building on the insights of intersectionality feminism to more convincingly capture the unity of a complex, diverse social whole.
BannerjiHimaniBakanAbigail B.DuaEnakshi‘Marxism and Anti-Racism in Theory and Practice: Reflections and Interpretations’Theorizing Anti-Racism: Linkages in Marxism and Critical Race Theories2014TorontoUniversity of Toronto Press
ColenShelleeGinsburgFaye D.RappRayna‘“Like a Mother to Them”: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York’Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction1995BerkeleyUniversity of California Press
CrenshawKimberléDemarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics1989ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Legal Forum
Hontagneu-SoteloPierretteAvillaErnestineZinnMaxine B.Hontagneu-SoteloPierretteMessnerMichael A.‘“I’m Here, but I’m There”: The Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhood’Gender Through the Prism of Difference2000BostonAllyn and Bacon
See Ferguson19992008; Luxton 2006; Luxton Ferguson Schein and Carty 2014.
Ackerly and McDermott2012p. 367.
Ackerly and McDermott2012p. 367. See Davis 2008 p. 75 for a snapshot of the literature. Also see Butler 1990; Bannerji 2005; McCall 2005; Nash 2008; Winker and Degele 2011.
Yuval-Davis2006p. 195. The term ‘camp’ is in scare-quotes because each ‘camp’s’ adherents do not rigidly subscribe to and/or defend the distinctions Yuval-Davis draws.
Nash2008pp. 6 7.
Carbado Crenshaw Mays and Tomlinson2013p. 206.
See Dhamoon2011p. 233; Nash 2008 pp. 6–7; and Yuval-Davis 2006 pp. 195–8 for elaborations on these criticisms. See Carbado et al. for a partial rebuttal (Carbado Crenshaw Mays and Tomlinson 2013 p. 308).
See for example Yuval-Davis2006p. 195. Crenshaw and others who take an additive approach will describe oppressions as interdependent but this is asserted rather than explained.
Hill Collins1990p. 222. Hill Collins uses the term ‘interlocking’ to evoke the necessary relation of systems of oppression in the broader social context (as opposed to the more contingent ‘intersectional’ historical moments).
Dhamoon2011pp. 238–9 (emphasis added).
Anthias2012p. 132. Anthias does not explicitly equate ‘translocational’ with ‘transnational’ but is unclear about what else might constitute the former.
Anthias2012pp. 133 and 131.
See Davis2008. As well Dhamoon’s ‘matrixes of meaning-making’ (Dhamoon 2011) seem to see power primarily in discursive terms.
See for example Nash2008p. 13; and Anthias 2012 p. 131.
Laslett and Brenner1989p. 382.
Marx1964p. 111; Marx and Engels 1932 Volume 1 Chapter 1. If this expansive understanding of labour is indeed a premise of history its internal differentiation (over time and across space) needs to be explained. An exclusive focus on any particular form of labour (value-creating or domestic or peasant for instance) risks occluding the wider picture.