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
BannerjiHimaniBakanAbigail B.DuaEnakshi‘Marxism and Anti-Racism in Theory and Practice: Reflections and Interpretations’
Theorizing Anti-Racism: Linkages in Marxism and Critical Race Theories
2014TorontoUniversity of Toronto Press)| false
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
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 Reproduction
1995BerkeleyUniversity of California Press)| false
CrenshawKimberléDemarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics1989ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Legal Forum
Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics
1989ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Legal Forum)| false
FergusonSusan & McNallyDavidPanitchLeo & AlboGreg‘Precarious Migrants: Gender, Race and the Social Reproduction of a Global Working Class’Socialist Register 2015: Transforming Classes2014LondonMerlin Press
FergusonSusanMcNallyDavidPanitchLeoAlboGreg‘Precarious Migrants: Gender, Race and the Social Reproduction of a Global Working Class’
Socialist Register 2015: Transforming Classes
2014LondonMerlin Press)| false
Hontagneu-SoteloPierrette & AvillaErnestineZinnMaxine B., Hontagneu-SoteloPierrette & MessnerMichael A.‘“I’m Here, but I’m There”: The Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhood’Gender Through the Prism of Difference2000BostonAllyn and Bacon
Hontagneu-SoteloPierretteAvillaErnestineZinnMaxine B.Hontagneu-SoteloPierretteMessnerMichael A.‘“I’m Here, but I’m There”: The Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhood’
Gender Through the Prism of Difference
2000BostonAllyn and Bacon)| false
See Ferguson1999, 2008; Luxton 2006; Luxton, Ferguson, Schein and Carty 2014.
Sayers1985, p. 16.
Nash2008, p. 4.
Ackerly and McDermott2012, p. 367.
Davis2008, p. 68.
Ackerly and McDermott2012, p. 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-Davis2006, p. 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.
Nash2008, pp. 6, 7.
Carbado, Crenshaw, Mays and Tomlinson2013, p. 206.
Nash2008, p. 12.
See Dhamoon2011, p. 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).
Yuval-Davis2006, p. 195.
Nash2008, p. 10.
See, for example, Yuval-Davis2006, p. 195. Crenshaw and others who take an additive approach will describe oppressions as interdependent, but this is asserted rather than explained.
Hill Collins1990, p. 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).
Dhamoon2011, p. 234.
Dhamoon2011, pp. 238–9.
Anthias2012, p. 130.
Yuval-Davis2006, p. 195.
Dhamoon2011, pp. 238–9 (emphasis added).
Anthias2012, p. 132. Anthias does not explicitly equate ‘translocational’ with ‘transnational’, but is unclear about what else might constitute the former.
Anthias2012, pp. 133 and 131.
See Davis2008. As well, Dhamoon’s ‘matrixes of meaning-making’ (Dhamoon 2011) seem to see power primarily in discursive terms.
Williams1977, pp. 83–9.
Bannerji2005, p. 146.
Bannerji2014, p. 128.
See, for example, Nash2008, p. 13; and Anthias 2012, p. 131.
Laslett and Brenner1989, p. 382.
Marx1964, p. 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.