{"id":2369,"date":"2022-01-18T13:33:02","date_gmt":"2022-01-18T11:33:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/?p=2369"},"modified":"2022-01-18T13:33:02","modified_gmt":"2022-01-18T11:33:02","slug":"issue-57-social-reproduction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/sayilar-en\/issue-57-social-reproduction\/","title":{"rendered":"Issue 57 – Social Reproduction"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/4″][vc_single_image image=”2362″ img_size=”large” onclick=”link_image”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”3\/4″][vc_column_text]Editor: <\/strong>Fuat \u00d6zdin<\/span><\/p>\n

Assistant Editor: <\/span><\/strong>\u00dcmit \u00d6zger<\/span><\/p>\n

Issue Editors: <\/span><\/strong>Ali Yal\u00e7\u0131n G\u00f6ymen, Co\u015fku \u00c7elik, Ezgi Do\u011fru, Melehat Kutun, Melda Yaman<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][vc_toggle title=”Those Carrying the World on Their Shoulders, The Naked Emperors\/Empires and the Possibility of a Better World: Observations and Visions on Social Reproduction in the Pandemic Era”]Sedef Arat-Ko\u00e7<\/strong>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Social Reproduction Feminism: Merits and Shortcomings of a Unitary Theory Approach”]\u00a0Yasemin Dildar<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article critically examines the Marxist-feminist approaches gathered under the umbrella of social reproduction feminism. Social reproduction feminism analyzes women\u2019s domestic labor in the context of social reproduction and argues that a unitary theory combining women\u2019s oppression and capitalist exploitation is possible. According to this approach, the conditions enabling women\u2019s oppression <\/span>should be explained by the social reproductive needs of the capitalist social formation instead of a transhistorical patriarchal impulse. The article starts with a discussion of the need for a unitary theory based on the theoretical limitations of dual or triple systems approaches which argue that patriarchy and capitalism should be analyzed as separate systems. After giving a brief history of the rise of social reproduction feminism and unitary theory, it focuses on two major theoretical problems. First one is the value debate in social reproduction theory (SRT); whether domestic labor can be incorporated into Marxian value analysis. Second is analytical duality, whether SRT overcomes the analytical duality by unifying class and gender dynamics in the same theory. SRT does not explain women\u2019s oppression with only capital but it assigns a greater determining power to capital accumulation process in relation to other social hierarchies in the <\/span>analysis of social totality under capitalism. It is argued that this attempt to analyze the reproduction of both gender and capital dialectically as part of an integrated totality is a worthwhile and stimulating endeavor despite the gaps in SRT.
\n<\/span>Keywords: <\/span><\/strong>Social reproduction theory, Marxist feminism, dual systems theories, gender, class<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”A Short Note on Patriarchy”]G\u00fclnur Acar Savran<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Crisis of Social Reproduction and the \u2018Men\u2019s Question\u2019 of the Capitalist State: The Case of (Under-) Criminalization Processes of Male Perpetrators of Violence against Women in Turkey”]Funda H\u00fclag\u00fc<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Patriarkal toplumsal cinsiyet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde kad\u0131nlar lehine yap\u0131lan iyile\u015ftirmeler d\u00f6neminin k\u0131smen sona erdi\u011fi, anti-feminist devlet projelerinin ve \u00f6rg\u00fctl\u00fc feminizm kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131 m\u00fccadelenin y\u00fckseldi\u011fi bir tarihsel d\u00f6neme\u00e7teyiz. Bu makale, bu d\u00f6nemeci belirleyen politik-ekonomik mant\u0131k \u00fczerine bir tart\u0131\u015fma denemesinde bulunmakta, toplumsal yeniden \u00fcretim kuram\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak bir kapitalist devlet okumas\u0131n\u0131n, feminist kuram ve siyaset i\u00e7in eski, ama eskimeyen kimi tart\u0131\u015fma g\u00fcndemlerini yeniden zorunlu k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmektedir. Makaleye g\u00f6re, kad\u0131na y\u00f6nelik \u015fiddet faillerinin kimi zaman eksik kimi zaman fazla-su\u00e7lula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 siyaseti, toplumsal yeniden \u00fcretim krizinin devlet \u00fczerinde yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ifte yap\u0131sal tazyikten ayr\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemez. Bu \u00e7ifte tazyikin bir \u00f6\u011fesini patriarkal toplumsal cinsiyet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki k\u0131r\u0131lmalar\/zaaflar te\u015fkil ederken, di\u011fer \u00f6\u011fesini mutlak ve g\u00f6reli s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc oranlar\u0131n\u0131n eme\u011fin de\u011ferlenme s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinde yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 dalgalanmalar olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Bu her iki unsur da kapitalist devletin \u201ccinsiyet temelli stratejik se\u00e7imlerini\u201d belirlemektedir. Ancak hangi tarihsel d\u00f6nemde hangi unsurun ne oranda a\u011f\u0131r basaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, son kertede klasik patriarkan\u0131n y\u00fcz de\u011fi\u015ftirerek de olsa h\u00fck\u00fcm s\u00fcrmeye devam etti\u011fi K\u00fcresel G\u00fcney \u00fclkelerinde devletin politik antropolojisine rengini veren ve\/veya devlet-toplum kompleksi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem verilen erkek eme\u011finin toplumsal de\u011fer hiyerar\u015filerindeki konumu belirlemektedir. Toplumsal yeniden \u00fcretim s\u00fcre\u00e7lerindeki y\u0131pranman\u0131n krize evrildi\u011fi d\u00f6nemlerde, de\u011fer hiyerar\u015fileri sars\u0131lmakla kalmaz, kapitalist devletin bir karar vermesi gerekir: bir toplumsal grup olarak hangi kad\u0131nlar\u0131 ve hangi erkekleri politika yap\u0131m s\u00fcre\u00e7lerinin ve kriz y\u00f6netiminin merkezine koymal\u0131? Kad\u0131nlar\u0131n toplumsal konumunu mu iyile\u015ftirmeli, erkeklerin siyasal konumunu mu sabitlemeli? Finansal kapitalizm d\u00f6neminde bu temel \u00e7eli\u015fki, siyasi iktidarlar\u0131n diyagonal kararlar almas\u0131na, devletin bir \u201ckriz-devleti\u201d haline gelmesine neden olmaktad\u0131r.
\n<\/span>Anahtar Kelimleler:<\/strong> <\/span>Toplumsal yeniden \u00fcretim, patriarka, kapitalist devlet, kad\u0131na y\u00f6nelik \u015fiddet, Adalet ve Kalk\u0131nma Partisi (AKP)<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Spatio-Temporal Boundaries, Fluidities and Responses within a Crisis of Social Reproduction: Precarization, Waiting and Youth Labour”]Hilal Kara<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Drawing on work experiences of young people described as a transition category, this study examines a spatio-temporal analysis of the everlasting crisis in social reproduction in Turkey\u2019s transformation into neoliberal authoritarianism adopting a conservative politics. Examining the questions raised by feminist analyses of work and labour and extensive fieldwork based on in-depth interviews with young graduates, this study finds out that the combination of Turkey\u2019s ongoing transformation into neoliberal authoritarianism and conservative gender regime produces a particular spatio temporality characterized by an everlasting waiting experience for young people, where they are stuck in a vicious cycle of indebtedness, unemployment and precarious employment and exposed to state-induced familist and conservative gender regime. Even though this spatio-temporality is seen as the site of suppression and surveillance by the patriarchal-neoliberal state, it also has the potential for producing invisible, mundane, and silent resistance mechanisms as young people navigate precarious life and work conditions.
\n<\/span>Ke<\/span>ywords: <\/span><\/strong>Social reproduction, crisis, gender, informalization, precarious youth<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Home which Becomes a Workplace: Working from Home in the Context of Social Reproduction”]\u00a0\u00c7a\u011fla \u00dcnl\u00fct\u00fcrk Uluta\u015f<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In this study, based on Nancy Fraser\u2019s theory that different phases of capitalism are accompanied by different crises of social reproduction, I develop the argument that every phase of capitalism harbors a social reproductive regime. Today, the new consensus between patriarchy and capitalist system is on the ability to benefit from the productive and reproductive characteristics of women via flexible employment arrangements. Working from home, which is one of the flexible working arrangements, has rapidly become widespread with Covid-19. Thus, the spatial combination of production and reproduction has extended women\u2019s total time devoted to paid and unpaid work and deepened gender inequalities at home.
\n<\/span>Keywords:<\/strong> <\/span>Social reproduction, working from home, remote working, women\u2019s labour<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Migrant Labor from the Perspective of Social Reproduction: Germany’s “Guest Workers“”]\u00a0Eda Kara<\/strong><\/p>\n

The subject of this work which aims to rethink migrant labour from a social reproduction point of view is how the social reproduction processes of guest workers (Gastarbeiter*innen) having immigrated from Turkey to Germany in the post WWII era were differently organised comparing to the nonmigrant workers at the time and how their social reproduction capasities were confiscated on different aspects. Although Social Reproduction Literature mainly eleborates on capitalist production and women\u2019s work, it offers a fruitful framework through conceptualizing production and reproduction sphere in a theoretical totality and eleborating on the interplay between reproduction of different types of labour power and social reproduction processes. In this regard, this study aims to investigate the possibility of a theoretical framework for ethnicized forms of labor, drawing on the theoretical framework of social reproduction literature on gendered forms of labor. After summarizing the social reproduction perspective in its relation with migrant labour, it would be discussed that exploitation of migrant labour has played an important role in accumulation of capital in Germany and exposited on which aspects the confiscation of social reproduction capacities of migrant labour takes place.
\nKeywords: <\/span><\/strong>Social reproduction, migrant labour, guest workers, ethnicized forms of labour<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Locating Education in the Social Reproduction Discussions “]Ezgi P\u0131nar<\/strong><\/p>\n

Any social agent from any segment of society has a link to the field of education and education policies. Education fulfills ideological, cultural, and economic functions in a society and all these functions are integrated with social reproduction function. The current and dominant interpretation of social reproduction theory does not deal with education, especially its social reproduction function. However, considering education in the context of social reproduction will expand the scope of social reproduction theory and contribute to the literature. In this study, education is elaborated in the context of the production and reproduction of the workforce and, this study aims to reveal the enriching theoretical interaction between the school and the phenomenon of social reproduction.
\n<\/span>Keywords: <\/span><\/strong>Social reproduction, production of labour force, reproduction of labour force, education, domestic labour<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Reading Reproduction Through Gender Relations: A Theoretical Evaluation on Raewyn Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity “]Ay\u015fem Sezer \u015eanl\u0131-Funda Kemahl\u0131 Garipo\u011flu<\/p>\n

This study focuses on the importance of R.W Connell’s “masculinities theory” in which she problematizes different types of masculinity and the concept of “hegemonic masculinity”, which she considers as the most dominant type in this theory, in explaining the reproduction process. The concept of hegemony, which Antonio Gramsci uses to explain the establishment of power relations between classes based on consent rather than coercion, is decisive in Connell’s works. In this study, which is designed as a theoretical research, it is discussed that Connell’s explanation of the reproduction process with the concept of “hegemonic masculinity” by focusing on Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony” and problematizing the practices of femininity and masculinity in the social order based on gender discrimination. In this context, Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is both a hierarchy between masculinities, as a concept that deals with both the social organization of the gender order, It provides an important framework to comprehend how unequal social relations are reproduced and to consider the possibility of establishing an egalitarian social structure by reversing the direction of hegemony in this reproduction process.
\n<\/span>Keywords: <\/span><\/strong>R. W. Connell, A. Gramsci, Reproduction, Hegemonic Masculinity, Gender.<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Interwiev: Crisis of Care “]Sarah Leonard – Nancy Fraser[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Interwiev: Social Reproduction Struggles in the 21st Century “]Co\u015fku \u00c7elik – Olena Lyubchenko – Rhaysa Sampaio Ruas da Fonseca – Lina Nasr El Hag Ali[\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Interview: An Interview with Stefania Barca Stefania Barca- Ethemcan Turhan”][\/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”The Meaning of Competition in Capitalism: Does Capitalism Undergo Phases of Evolution?”]\u0130hsan Ercan Sadi<\/strong><\/p>\n

Until the early decades of the twentieth century, it was common among economists that competition established the <\/span>sine qua non <\/span>of capitalist economies. This idea was shared by both classical and neoclassical economists; finding its purest forms of conceptualization as <\/span>free competition <\/span>in the former, and as <\/span>perfect competition <\/span>in the latter. As with the rise of joint stock companies and giant corporations from the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, on the other hand, this common belief in economics began to be subjected to criticisms, with a belief that capitalism had gone through fundamental changes, and hence reached the stage of monopoly capitalism. The main argument of those thinkers who we can classify under the label of the monopoly capital school was that the analysis of capitalism in the 20th century should be replaced by one that aims to theorize the monopolistic practices, which themselves had been both producing and were being subject to different laws of motion than those of the competitive capitalism in the 19th century. By the second half of the 20th century, this flow of thought produced two opposite reactions: i) first, such important neo-Smithian scholars as Paul Sweezy, Immanuel Wallerstein and Fernand Braudel started to read the history of capitalism in terms of trade relations rather than relations of production, and specifically in Braudel\u2019s case, as a field necessarily comprehended as <\/span>anti <\/span>market; and ii) second, some group of social scientists pioneered by Anwar Shaikh argued that the theory of <\/span>real competition <\/span>that brings about the laws of capital accumulation as introduced by Karl Marx in his <\/span>Capital <\/span>still holds true for understanding contemporary capitalism; thus competition has not been eliminated by monopolistic practices, but rather has been unfolding with the development of capitalism, as firms have been adapting even stronger competitive capabilities and employing even harsher competitive strategies. In this paper, we aim to examine the theoretical coherence and the empirical validity of each argument on one hand; and to discuss whether capitalism has its own laws of motion, and if so, whether they change or not, on the other. In the conclusion, we propose two types of 2×2 competition-monopoly matrix.
\n<\/span>Keywords: <\/span><\/strong>Neoclassical Theory of Competition, Monopoly Capital School, Commercialization Model, Marxist Theory of Real Competition.<\/span>[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/4″][vc_single_image image=”2362″ img_size=”large” onclick=”link_image”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”3\/4″][vc_column_text]Editor: Fuat \u00d6zdin Assistant Editor: \u00dcmit \u00d6zger Issue Editors: Ali Yal\u00e7\u0131n G\u00f6ymen, Co\u015fku \u00c7elik, Ezgi Do\u011fru, Melehat Kutun, Melda…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sayilar-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2369"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2370,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2369\/revisions\/2370"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.praksis.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}