Sign in with Facebook
Kevin's Reviews > The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values
The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values
by
by
Kevin's review
bookshelves: econ-gender, 1-how-the-world-works, econ-state-welfare, econ-value-labour, theory-gender
Oct 13, 2024
bookshelves: econ-gender, 1-how-the-world-works, econ-state-welfare, econ-value-labour, theory-gender
Feminist Economics 101�
Preamble:
--This is one of those gems I’ve been referencing for ages but never finished. So, in my re-prioritization of the “big reads�, it’s time to check this off.
--As usual, I’ve taken liberties with re-organizing the book’s contents in a manner that allows me to start with the big picture. This was especially useful here; Folbre actually has amazing scope of content, but the book’s organization often narrows this because it’s mostly targeting a US audience on domestic policies.
Highlights:
1) Patriarchy’s Bargain:
--Patriarchy’s care-work/reproductive labour (“social reproduction�) is secured through mostly social coercion/normalization of free labour from women. Folbre is brief on this section, so I’ll have to fill in�
--On the origins, Folbre mentions: biological division-of-labour compelled women to specialize in child-rearing, which led to more dependence on males for assistance. Now, this is a messy general statement. For example, if we consider the diversity of paleo/anthropology, female kinship support seems more crucial to direct assistance with child-rearing, and at least an important factor overall: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
--So, the transition to patriarchy’s power over family and society is more complicated, which requires analyzing the materialist anthropology of:
i) modes of production, which influences surplus thus property rights and defense/raiding: “immediate return� nomadic hunting-gathering vs. “delayed return� settled agriculture/nomadic pastoralism
ii) residence of couples with which side of the family, which influences bargaining power between the genders: “patrilocal� vs. “matrilocal�
iii) inheritance: “patrilineal� vs. “matrilineal�
--Once patriarchy was established, Folbre can make the point that there are efficiencies in the specialization, while warning of the costs (stunting women’s development of capabilities/bargaining power).
2) Capitalism’s Disruptions:
…Thus, Folbre frames capitalism as eroding patriarchy (along with its captured care!), leaving a gap in care. I think this framing is messy; it's like those who frame capitalism as somehow eroding slavery and replacing it with wage labour. All these generalities are contingent on the scope (space/time) of your analysis. The rise of capitalism relied on the rise of chattel slavery; Marxist feminists would link capitalism with patriarchy in various ways:
-ex. Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation
-ex. Mies' Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour
...I prefer the framing of capitalism's "uninterrupted disturbance" ("all new-formed [relations] become antiquated before they can ossify").
...While I sympathize with feminists having impatience for the mountain of patriarchal “Economics� theory, I think it’s a shame to not address tools of power; this is where academics like Folbre shine, going through the labyrinth of status quo theory and then applying an alternative lens.
…Can capitalist markets fill this gap? Modern mainstream economists, being vulgar sociopaths in their normalization of capitalism, are steps behind even the pioneer capitalist cheerleader on addressing capitalism’s care gap:
i) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1758):
--Adam Smith’s first major work shows his optimistic view of human nature (Smith was a moral philosopher), which today’s vulgar economists omit:
--However, Smith along with the other patriarchal fathers of political economy/liberalism (including John Locke), assumed care was just natural maternal instinct, thus devalued/free to exploit (along with Mother Nature)/separate from the emerging concept of “work� under capitalism (“labour theory of value�) as rational calculations.
…Folbre stresses that assuming care is maternal and simply from nature obscures all the social incentives/coercion with their wide range of outcomes. Care has limits with difficult decisions over responsibilities, including “prisoners of love� emotional attachments.
ii) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776):
--Now we have the (naïve) moral philosophy context for the infamous quote which vulgar economists cherry-pick:
--The book title Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? A Story About Women and Economics is illustrative. The “Invisible Hand� of markets would not have any labour without the “Invisible Heart� of care-work.
--Crucially, the benefits of care-work are not captured in the immediate market exchange (thus, “externalities�), so competitors on the market want to cut the costs of the “care penalty�. This is such a tragedy because the external benefits can be captured on the community level (esp. long-term). Care-work that enters the market are notoriously perverse, with US’s healthcare/education/childcare/elderly care as glaring examples.
…The actual goal of social services is communism (i.e. “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs�: quality services accessible for everyone in need…an interesting paradox I think about working in public health within a capitalist society). Market logic, in contrast, is one-dollar-one-vote, so poor people do not have value. Privatized social services only seem “efficient� because of selection, where they exclude those most in need (ex. US’s obscenely costly and exclusionary private health insurance). In the US, this class discrimination gets compounded with race discrimination, ex. exclusionary school funding leading to re-segregation.
--Our pro-capitalist economic measures reflect its priorities, with stock prices and GDP growth reflecting the health of the rich and their short-term pillaging (at whatever costs). Measuring social health would require focusing on access to public health/education/basic needs, as well as building human capabilities/communities (care/civic participation)/long-term environmental health, subtracting the costs (which capitalism find most profitable, including military industrial complex/speculative gambling/addiction).
--Furthermore, actions can change motivations. Cooperation builds trust, a virtuous cycle. Ruthless competition, like an arms race, is a vicious cycle.
…see comments for the rest of the review:
"3) Reform's Protectionism"
"4) Neoliberalism's Disruptions"
"5) Progressives' Future?"
Preamble:
--This is one of those gems I’ve been referencing for ages but never finished. So, in my re-prioritization of the “big reads�, it’s time to check this off.
--As usual, I’ve taken liberties with re-organizing the book’s contents in a manner that allows me to start with the big picture. This was especially useful here; Folbre actually has amazing scope of content, but the book’s organization often narrows this because it’s mostly targeting a US audience on domestic policies.
Highlights:
1) Patriarchy’s Bargain:
--Patriarchy’s care-work/reproductive labour (“social reproduction�) is secured through mostly social coercion/normalization of free labour from women. Folbre is brief on this section, so I’ll have to fill in�
--On the origins, Folbre mentions: biological division-of-labour compelled women to specialize in child-rearing, which led to more dependence on males for assistance. Now, this is a messy general statement. For example, if we consider the diversity of paleo/anthropology, female kinship support seems more crucial to direct assistance with child-rearing, and at least an important factor overall: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
--So, the transition to patriarchy’s power over family and society is more complicated, which requires analyzing the materialist anthropology of:
i) modes of production, which influences surplus thus property rights and defense/raiding: “immediate return� nomadic hunting-gathering vs. “delayed return� settled agriculture/nomadic pastoralism
ii) residence of couples with which side of the family, which influences bargaining power between the genders: “patrilocal� vs. “matrilocal�
iii) inheritance: “patrilineal� vs. “matrilineal�
--Once patriarchy was established, Folbre can make the point that there are efficiencies in the specialization, while warning of the costs (stunting women’s development of capabilities/bargaining power).
2) Capitalism’s Disruptions:
Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch [i.e. capitalism] from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned [...]--Capitalism’s reproductive labour is still mostly through free (unwaged) labour from women; however, capitalism’s disruptions have rendered patriarchy’s family economy obsolete. Families no longer rely on a self-sufficiency (“economy� has roots in “house� and “to manage�) and look to the outside labour market for opportunities, eventually with most women entering the labour market.
-The Communist Manifesto
…Thus, Folbre frames capitalism as eroding patriarchy (along with its captured care!), leaving a gap in care. I think this framing is messy; it's like those who frame capitalism as somehow eroding slavery and replacing it with wage labour. All these generalities are contingent on the scope (space/time) of your analysis. The rise of capitalism relied on the rise of chattel slavery; Marxist feminists would link capitalism with patriarchy in various ways:
-ex. Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation
-ex. Mies' Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour
...I prefer the framing of capitalism's "uninterrupted disturbance" ("all new-formed [relations] become antiquated before they can ossify").
...While I sympathize with feminists having impatience for the mountain of patriarchal “Economics� theory, I think it’s a shame to not address tools of power; this is where academics like Folbre shine, going through the labyrinth of status quo theory and then applying an alternative lens.
…Can capitalist markets fill this gap? Modern mainstream economists, being vulgar sociopaths in their normalization of capitalism, are steps behind even the pioneer capitalist cheerleader on addressing capitalism’s care gap:
i) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1758):
--Adam Smith’s first major work shows his optimistic view of human nature (Smith was a moral philosopher), which today’s vulgar economists omit:
However selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.…Smith assumed people’s love of family/duty to others/loyalty to country were the basis of advanced civilization, where “self-interest� would be rendered benevolent.
--However, Smith along with the other patriarchal fathers of political economy/liberalism (including John Locke), assumed care was just natural maternal instinct, thus devalued/free to exploit (along with Mother Nature)/separate from the emerging concept of “work� under capitalism (“labour theory of value�) as rational calculations.
…Folbre stresses that assuming care is maternal and simply from nature obscures all the social incentives/coercion with their wide range of outcomes. Care has limits with difficult decisions over responsibilities, including “prisoners of love� emotional attachments.
ii) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776):
--Now we have the (naïve) moral philosophy context for the infamous quote which vulgar economists cherry-pick:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.…The foundations of markets require social norms of honesty/good-will/trust (“Invisible Handshake�) enough for buyers and sellers to complete exchanges (and not conspire/cheat) as complete strangers. (This also reveals the permanence of state violence in capitalism, to protect property rights).
--The book title Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? A Story About Women and Economics is illustrative. The “Invisible Hand� of markets would not have any labour without the “Invisible Heart� of care-work.
--Crucially, the benefits of care-work are not captured in the immediate market exchange (thus, “externalities�), so competitors on the market want to cut the costs of the “care penalty�. This is such a tragedy because the external benefits can be captured on the community level (esp. long-term). Care-work that enters the market are notoriously perverse, with US’s healthcare/education/childcare/elderly care as glaring examples.
…The actual goal of social services is communism (i.e. “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs�: quality services accessible for everyone in need…an interesting paradox I think about working in public health within a capitalist society). Market logic, in contrast, is one-dollar-one-vote, so poor people do not have value. Privatized social services only seem “efficient� because of selection, where they exclude those most in need (ex. US’s obscenely costly and exclusionary private health insurance). In the US, this class discrimination gets compounded with race discrimination, ex. exclusionary school funding leading to re-segregation.
--Our pro-capitalist economic measures reflect its priorities, with stock prices and GDP growth reflecting the health of the rich and their short-term pillaging (at whatever costs). Measuring social health would require focusing on access to public health/education/basic needs, as well as building human capabilities/communities (care/civic participation)/long-term environmental health, subtracting the costs (which capitalism find most profitable, including military industrial complex/speculative gambling/addiction).
--Furthermore, actions can change motivations. Cooperation builds trust, a virtuous cycle. Ruthless competition, like an arms race, is a vicious cycle.
…see comments for the rest of the review:
"3) Reform's Protectionism"
"4) Neoliberalism's Disruptions"
"5) Progressives' Future?"
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Invisible Heart.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
July 29, 2017
– Shelved
September 26, 2024
–
Started Reading
October 13, 2024
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)
date
newest »
newest »
4) Neoliberalism’s Disruptions: --The welfare state’s increased costs of care became on the chopping block with the rise of Neoliberalism (for geopolitical roots, see: The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy), re-opening capitalism’s care gap.
--Referring to the illustrative book title Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World (1995):
a) “M´ǰ� Neoliberalism’s accelerating global mobility (esp. finance) relies increasingly on free-riding exploited global care-work (ex. immigration of care-givers).
...note: I’m of course much more interested in a broader feminist economics beyond US domestic policies (there are comparisons with environmentalism and a quote by Maria Mies, so we can consider Ecofeminism).
b) “J� represents conservative social protectionism, to rebuild patriarchy via tribalism (anti-immigration/nationalism/social conservatism).
5) Progressives� Future?: --Folbre wants to transcend capitalism vs.
--DZ’s alternative is built on 3 pillars:
i) Stakeholder Society:
--If we move pass the messy labels (“Market Socialism�/“Stakeholder Capitalism�), Folbre’s point here is that markets are useful for certain sectors (ex. consumer goods). In these, workers are the key stakeholders and need to be rewarded as such, where there’s a range of weak to strong methods.
--However, even workers ownership (Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism) is a micro solution that misses macro issues: some sectors are currently more profitable than others, where workers are distributed by class/gender/race. Some sectors (ex. healthcare/education) should stay off market competition. So, this requires macro solutions in social ownership. Folbre references The Stakeholder Socieity (1999) providing grants to young people to invest in developing their capabilities (rather than relying on just owning shares). For more ideas, see Another Now.
-Owning the Future: Power and Property in an Age of Crisis
ii) Participatory Democracy:
--Participation in decision-making is key to building capabilities. Beyond the state’s political theatre, there’s:
--Workplace: ex. German workers on boards of directors. Ex. Albert/Hanel’s “participatory economics� focusing on rebalancing workplaces away from specialization, which Folbre challenges to a degree regarding efficiency.
--International governance: United Nations rather than IMF. Once again, how?
iii) Planned Shared Care:
--The core of Folbre’s lens, care-work requires social incentives beyond social democracy's (political democracy but capitalist economy) welfare state compromise. Responsibilities need to be distributed where male roles need to be modified to share the care responsibilities; Folbre rejects the notion that women are more caring, as this separates care from power. One obvious policy is reducing work-time to open up more time for family/community responsibilities.
--Folbre also suggests kinship and obligations to dependents can be expanded beyond the family ("family values"), to better reward caring between friends, community services, etc.
--Unfortunately, much of this book is consumed by narrow debates on US’s obscene social policies, so these big picture/alternatives sections are too brief.
John wrote: "Books on history of patriarchy?"-Ա’s The Creation of Patriarchy and The Creation of Feminist Consciousness: From the Middle Ages to Eighteen-seventy
-Բ� The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
(for an anthropological update, see Knight’s article “Engels was right: Early Human Kinship was Matrilineal�)
-DZ’s The Rise and Decline of Patriarchal Systems: An Intersectional Political Economy
-’s Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation
-Ѿ� Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour
-Dz첹’s A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice
-ԲԱٳ’s History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism
--Prehistory with useful materialist tools of analysis:
-’s Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
-Ծ’s Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture
--Given capitalist markets disruptions and inability to fill the care gap, variations of social protectionism have contended to move against the current and fill in the care gap. In the West, this culminated in social democracy’s welfare state which filled in services but at increased costs.
--Contending social protectionism:
a) Conservative:
--Return to patriarchy; one variant is the romanticization of family life domesticity, with the 1868 American Woman’s Home becoming a textbook; the housewife’s self-denial to preserve the home was a protection against the outside impersonal market.
…Pioneer vulgar economist Alfred Marshall warned against higher wages luring women into the labour market, neglecting family care.
b) Socialist:
--On the utopian end, Robert Owens wanted to build society as the family, but naïvely ran on good intentions leading to good results.
--Marxism tried to counter with the other end, framing a �scientific� analysis of the march of history where capitalism builds technology and alleviates scarcity but leads to increasing class division and crisis in profitability, thus a working-class revolution is needed to collectivize the means of production.
--Folbre equates Marxism with 20th century Marxist-Leninist revolutions, listing the expected critiques of the USSR: central planning, where meeting expectations of pre-determined rules took priority over performance (missing the cost-cutting innovations via Schumpeterian “creative destruction� of market’s impersonal discipline).
…I do find this Western armchair critique myopic. These countries were going through rapid industrialization from feudal/colonized conditions, all under Western embargos/sabotage (� siege socialism �)…and still somehow drastically improved many of the social needs Folbre lauds (esp. public health/literacy/social housing etc., which the West copied in their welfare state compromise)! Western capitalism required centuries on the backs of global slave/coolie plantations and domestic working-class “Satanic mills�, where social protection had to be won through bloody protest.
--DZ’s best point is how Marxism relied too heavily on English liberalism’s political economy with its underlying patriarchy (discussed above with Adam Smith), prioritizing industrial production at the cost of care-work. Despite central planning technocracy, Folbre refocuses on the problems with management of people rather than management of information, i.e. the lack of consumer goods (ex. sanitary napkins, household appliances) reveals the priorities.
--Even the socialist services which did improve women’s rights/development of capabilities, Folbre seems to frame as funnelling women into the workforce to bolster industrial production. I’ll need to investigate other perspectives, like the influence of Alexandra Kollontai in the USSR (ex. Kristen R. Ghodsee’s works like Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence ).
--At the root, Folbre seems influenced from personal experience: c) Feminist:
--Folbre frames feminist movements having had more success than socialist working-class movements in taking advantages of capitalism’s disruptions so far. In the West, sure, but this point deflates once Folbre contrasts “Liberal Feminism� (individual freedom, equality in sharing men’s values under capitalism) vs. “Social Feminism� (sharing social obligations, including changing men’s).