Journals / Alternatif Politika / 2020 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

GENDER AND CLASS RELATIONS IN CAPITALISM: A CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL REPRODUCTION APPROACHES

KAPİTALİZMDE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET VE SINIF İLİŞKİLERİ: TOPLUMSAL YENİDEN-ÜRETİM YAKLAŞIMLARININ BİR ELEŞTİRİSİ

Pages
79–113
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In order to appreciate the importance of this contribution, the article first reviews the preliminary attempts of the 1970s that focus on the connection between capitalism and patriarchy; it then goes on to examine, in a thematic way, the different approaches in social reproduction theory, adopted as response to impasses in this early literature, through notions of relative autonomy of ideology, articulation of modes of production, and unity of capitalist production and reproduction; and finally, it concludes with a critical discussion of the limits and impasses of social reproduction theories from a historicalmaterialist perspective.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the theoretical insights developed on the basis of Marxian critique of political economy by SocialistFeminist literature that focuses on the connection between gender relations and capitalist mode of production.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This literature, which understands the causality relation between capitalism and women’s oppression within the framework of social reproduction theory, does not only provide a significant contribution to the women’s movement but also provokes fruitful discussions on the actual workings of capitalism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In order to appreciate the importance of this contribution, the article first reviews the preliminary attempts of the 1970s that focus on the connection between capitalism and patriarchy; it then goes on to examine, in a thematic way, the different approaches in social reproduction theory, adopted as response to impasses in this early literature, through notions of relative autonomy of ideology, articulation of modes of production, and unity of capitalist production and reproduction; and finally, it concludes with a critical discussion of the limits and impasses of social reproduction theories from a historicalmaterialist perspective.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article examines the theoretical insights developed on the basis of Marxian critique of political economy by SocialistFeminist literature that focuses on the connection between gender relations and capitalist mode of production. This literature, which understands the causality relation between capitalism and women’s oppression within the framework of social reproduction theory, does not only provide a significant contribution to the women’s movement but also provokes fruitful discussions on the actual workings of capitalism. In order to appreciate the importance of this contribution, the article first reviews the preliminary attempts of the 1970s that focus on the connection between capitalism and patriarchy; it then goes on to examine, in a thematic way, the different approaches in social reproduction theory, adopted as response to impasses in this early literature, through notions of relative autonomy of ideology, articulation of modes of production, and unity of capitalist production and reproduction; and finally, it concludes with a critical discussion of the limits and impasses of social reproduction theories from a historicalmaterialist perspective.

Özet

Bu makale modern toplumlarda toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkilerinin kapitalist üretim biçimi ile bağı üzerine odaklanan ve Marksist siyasal iktisat eleştirisini benimseyen sosyalist-feminist literatürün teorik açılımlarını incelemektedir. Kapitalizm ile partiyarka arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini toplumsal yenidenüretim teorisi (TYT) çerçevesinde değerlendiren bu literatür yalnızca kadın hareketi için kayda değer bir katkı sunmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda kapitalizmin nasıl işlediğine dair de verimli tartışmalara kapı açar. Bu doğrultuda, makale öncelikle TYT literatürüne zemin hazırlayan ve kapitalizmle patriyarka arasındaki bağı inceleyen 1970’lerdeki çalışmaları gözden geçirmektedir. Daha sonrasında, bu öncü literatürdeki açmazlar karşısında benimsenen farklı TYT yaklaşımlarını, bunların öne sürdükleri ideolojinin göreli özerkliği, üretim biçimlerinin eklemlenmesi ve kapitalist üretim ile yenidenüretimin birliği mefhumları üzerinden, tematik bir şekilde incelemektedir. Nihayet TYT yaklaşımlarının kendi sınırlarını ve açmazlarını tarihsel materyalist perspektiften eleştiren bir tartışmayla sonlandırılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZPINAR, C. (2020). GENDER AND CLASS RELATIONS IN CAPITALISM: A CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL REPRODUCTION APPROACHES. Alternatif Politika, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 79–113. https://ajindex.com/articles/141370

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Althusser, Louis (1971), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (New York: Monthly Review Press) (çev. Ben Brewster). Althusser, Louis (1976), Essays in Self-Criticism (Londra: NLB) (çev. Grahame Lock). Althusser, Louis (2005[1965]), Pour Marx (Paris: La Découverte). Anderson, Perry (1976), Considerations on Western Marxism (Londra: NLB). Barrett, Michèle (1988[1980]), Women’s Oppression Today: the Marxist/Feminist Encounters, gözden geçirilmiş edisyon (Londra: Verso). Barrett, Michèle ve Mary McIntosh (1979), “Christine Delphy: Towards a Materialist Feminism?”, Feminist Review, 1 (1): 95–106.
  2. Barrett, Michèle ve Mary McIntosh (1991[1982]), The Anti-social Family, ikinci edisyon (Londra: Verso). Beechey, Veronica (1978), “Women and Production: A Critical Analysis of Some Sociological Theories of Women’s Work”, Kuhn, Annette ve AnnMarie Wolpe (der.) (1978a), Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production (Londra: Routledge and Kegan Paul): 155–97.
  3. Brenner, Johanna (1984), “Review: Marxist Theory and the Woman Question”, Contemporary Sociology, 13 (6): 698–700.
  4. Brenner, Johanna (2000), Women and the Politics of Class (New York: Monthly Review Press). Brenner, Johanna ve Maria Ramas (1984), “Rethinking Women’s Oppression”, New Left Review I/144: 33–71.
  5. Brenner, Robert (1976), “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe”, Past & Present, 70: 30–75.
  6. Brenner, Robert (2007), “Property and Progress: Where Adam Smith Went Wrong”, Wickham, Chris (der.) (2017), Marxist History-writing for the Twentyfirst Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 49–111.
  7. Briggs, Laura (2017), How All Politics Became Reproductive Politics: From Welfare Reform to Foreclosure to Trump (Oakland, CA: University of California Press). Corrigan, Philip ve Derek Sayer (1978), “Hindess and Hirst: A Critical Review”, Socialist Register, 15: 194–214. de Lesseps, Emmanuèle (1980), “Hétérosexualité et féminisme”, Questions féministes, 7: 55–69.
  8. Delphy, Christine (1998), L’ennemi principal, cilt 1: Economie politique du patriarcat (Paris: Syllepse). Delphy, Christine (2003), “Pour une théorie générale de l’exploitation: en finir avec la théorie de la plus-value”, Mouvements, 26: 69–78.
  9. Delphy, Christine (2004), “Pour une théorie générale de l’exploitation. Deuxième partie: repartir du bon-pied”, Mouvements, 31: 97–106.
  10. Edholm, Felicity, Olivia Harris ve Kate Young (1978), “Conceptualising Women”, Critique of Anthropology, 3 (9/10): 101–30.
  11. Engels, Friedrich (