Social Reproduction

“They call it love; we call it unpaid labour.”
– Silvia Federici

Concretely, how can we define social reproduction? For feminists and Marxist scholars, social reproduction entails creating and sustaining the essential conditions for human life. This concept has been a central tenet of feminist theory for an extended period, recognizing the critical role played by women in caring for others and sustaining social relationships that are fundamental to the reproduction of society and the economy. In this sense, within feminist and Marxist theory, reproduction extends beyond mere biological procreation to encompass the comprehensive act of “making life.” Social reproduction involves a multifaceted process consisting of three essential components: biological reproduction, labour intricately linked to the renewal of the workforce (including tasks like nurturing and raising children to join the labour force or mitigating the physical toll exacted by capitalist exploitation), and the provision of care for those deemed outside the labour force, often relegated to the category of “useless” bodies to capital. From the feminist perspective, the immeasurable nature of work time refers to an excessive workload without clear boundaries and measurable time. Feminist theories have introduced the concept of the “triple working day,” which includes work outside the home, work within the house, and the labour involved in creating and maintaining relationships and networks of care. 

This debate arose in the early and late 1970s, among feminist Marxist autonomists, during which Italian and American scholars politicised the issue of wages. Marxists and feminists connected the discussion of domestic labour to capitalist production. Within this context, The International Wages for Housework Campaign (IWFHC), a grassroots women’s network campaigning for recognition and payment for all caring work, both at home and outside, was born. It was initiated in 1972 by Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Silvia Federici, Brigitte Galtier, and Selma James, who were the first to advocate for wages for housework. Pioneer feminists Maria Della Costa and Selma James both insisted on the interconnectedness and interdependence of domestic labour and the production of capital. Just as Marx explored “the hidden abode of production” to draw attention to waged labour and politicise the world of work, Marxist feminist scholarship aimed to surpass Marx’s understanding by radicalising his research methods. It focused on the reality of the “hidden abode of production” and made significant contributions to the study of social reproduction.

For them, the site of its extraction is the household or, as they coined it, the “social factory” (1973). The household can be seen as a “social factory,” actively involved in capitalist production. Some argue that the family functions as a privatised machine for social reproduction, keeping wages low and hours long. This is because it allows for the production of goods within the household, enabling individuals to work less and have more time outside of wage labour. Nicole Cox and Silvia Federici (1976:11), who also took part in these discussions, argued that “the wage always has two sides: the side of capital which uses it to control the working class by trying to ensure that every raise is matched by an increase in productivity; and the side of the working class which increasingly is fighting for more money, more power, and less work.”

The discourse surrounding wages for housewives delves into the complexities of valuing reproductive labour: Can tasks like domestic chores and caregiving be quantified into a wage? How do we determine the hours deserving compensation for such work, which involves intangible elements like care and affect? Silvia Federici cautions against the “patriarchy of the wage,” where the expectation of unpaid domestic labour perpetuates capitalism’s productivity. This invisible exploitation, rooted in the sexual division of labour, upholds hierarchical gender norms and devalues unpaid work. “We want to call work what is work so that eventually we might rediscover what is love and create what will be our sexuality which we have never known” (Federici 1975:192). The demand aims to clarify and strip away the romanticised perception of domestic labour while also emphasising its importance and value. Therefore, the wages for housework movement not only aimed to demystify the family but also to critically examine the wage system concept (Weeks 2011:129).

The discussion on social reproduction received both acclaim and criticism. Some critics of the wages for housework movement came from Black and Indigenous scholars in the USA. One critique from postcolonial feminist literature engages with the idea of dismantling the nuclear family as a privatised machine for social reproduction, despite the fact that this literature does not directly address the topic of social reproduction. In 1970, in contrast to the perspective of white feminism on dismantling the nuclear family, some Native and African American feminists argued that their freedom is tied to their ability to form families. They pointed out that the history of slavery, genocide, and racism has been tearing apart their communities (Bannerji 2005; Bhattacharjee 1997; Davis 1981; Hall 2016). 

Moreover, Angela Davis critiques the racialisation of domestic labour. She raises concerns about state intrusion into private spheres in the name of regulation, questioning the true liberating potential of wages. In this regard, Davis (1981 examines the historical narrative of Black women’s engagement in the labour force, highlighting how their role in domestic work evolved from being skilled workers to becoming relegated to servitude, particularly during the colonial period. This shift underscores a critical aspect: the transformation of domestic work from an integral part of the economy, extending beyond the household, to a secluded sphere where labour goes unacknowledged. This dichotomy illustrates how the household was politically constructed as a space of confinement. The crux of the issue lies not in the existence of domestic economies but in the stark division between the capitalist, profit-driven public sphere (the “labour market”) and the undervalued realm of domestic labour. Davis emphasises that Black women were not solely confined to housekeeping; instead, their economic agency within domestic economies was stripped away, pushing them into the labour market where they remained marginalised, often feeling like outsiders in factory settings (Gago 2020). This interconnectedness of patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism is strikingly evident in Davis’s analysis.

Feminist scholars from the SWANA region, such as Sara Salem and Mai Taha, among others, have made significant contributions to the theorising, documenting, and researching of social reproduction. Their work not only views social reproduction as the provision of material goods and services but also as the creation and reproduction of social relations and cultural practices that are essential for the reproduction of society. They emphasise the need to recognize the diversity of experiences of social reproduction, including how it is shaped by race, class, gender, and other forms of social difference. For instance, in their 2019 publication, they discuss how shifting economic patterns in Egypt have impacted social reproduction, mainly through hiring foreign domestic labour and creating a racialised marketplace. They explore the complexities of social reproduction, emphasising its intersection with various power relations, such as colonialism, nationalism, neoliberalism, race, and gender. They argue that social reproduction should be examined through the lens of multiple structural inequalities to comprehend its complexities fully. Drawing on the “global care chain” concept, they demonstrate how race and location are globally embedded in social reproduction and how nations compete to offer the “best quality” domestic workers. The authors emphasise the importance of considering the intersections of various structures, such as patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, and racism, in understanding social reproduction. They argue that it is only through reflecting on these intersections that the imbalances of social reproduction can be addressed.