Globalisation and Gender

Structures and Objectives of the Lecture Understand how processes of social and economic change are impacting on how we define Masculinity and Femininity To analyse the changing political economy of reproduction of reproduction and production (to link these processes)

Section One: Construction of Gender Section Two: Reconstruction of Reproductive Economy Section Three: ‘Productive Economy’

Construction of Gender One is not born a woman, one becomes one. The Second Sex Simone de Beauvoir Beauviour argues that throughout history women constructed as deviant other

It seems fairly uncontroversial to argue that idea of being male or female has little meaning outside social context Within contemporary capitalism main institutions shaping meanings market (consumption), family and the religion (or its legacies)

In so far globalisation affects these institutions it cannot but effect perceptions of gender Consumption: From the cradle to grave patterns of consumption are gendered. Colours of Children's Clothes: Pink and Blue

Young Children's Toys: Guns, Action Man, Engineering. Dolls ect Older Children: Early Teen Magazines, Fashion Football, Gadgets, Pornography

Adults: Friends, Sex in the City, Shoes etc Cars, Gadgets etc Through these acts of consumption we affirm our gender. These acts simultaneously tell us how to be a ‘good’ man/ women.

Globalisation is important not because it creates gendered patterns/norms of consumption but because it changes how these patterns and norms are formed. Historically different notions of gender articulated in different milieu

Global (ised) cultural production sees concentration of processes of definition in certain key sites of production. Global media industries create globalized norms of femininity and masculinity.

My example of what it means to be male when I was Frank White (who also made a big impression on Biggie)

Family: I think important in context of globalisation is decline in nuclear family (which I shall return to the second section) Religion: Even in post-religious societies. Moral codes derived from religions which prosobed gender roles

Equally significant revival of radical religion in context of revival of the politics of being

The Reproductive Economy 1995: Non-market work value was $15 trillion ($11 trillion women’s labour) Peterson argues that global capitalism can only function because of subventions from non-capitalist sector (allegory with world systems theory) Constant struggle to define to privatise and socialise costs and sexual division of labour within the reproductive economy (university fees represent a privatisation of costs)

Globalisation undermining primarily unit of Fordist reproductive economy. The Nuclear Family.

Marriages per annum declined by roughly 50% between 1972 and in 4 children are in lone parent families 60% British adults are part of a couple 40% are not.

Crisis in mode of regulating sexual relationships and reproductive economy My argument is ‘love’ as a regulatory mechanisms is in crisis I define ‘love’ as the idea that possible to spend life with first person due in part to emotional commitments.

Product of a particular set of material circumstances that no longer exist (Fordism) The new regime of accumulation is incommensurate with permanence (the image, flexible accumulation, consistent change). Physical movement!

Love is a destructive concept (1) Always been gendered (dark side) (2) More problematic now because it retains value as a regulatory ideal but it is a ideal without material supports

We in a interregnum. Hopefully, a new regime of regulation develops that stresses realism and gender equality. The crisis of love linked to a crisis in fertility(1.7 UK). Also contradictory demands of capital!

Difficult to generalise regarding the impact of changes in reproductive economy on gender division of labour (although rise in one parent family suggest exploitation of women getting more intense) It seems likely functions of reproduction increasing be put in state/ market sectors (see next section).

Also immigrant replaces reproduction in the core capitalist area!

Productive Economy Many key ‘globalising industries’ are highly feminised. Tourism! Female dominated employment. Also selling country through images of national Femininity. Source of National Competitiveness! Tourism and also sex industry

Gender played a key role in global restructuring Third World “Factory Girl” Construction of Norms of Productive Female (Combine specific ideas of race, Femininity, Global capital, Class): Docile, Capable of Competitive Work, Nimble. Norms limit progress for key females

Transformation from Fordism to Post- Fordism structured by pre-existing social structures. Leading to increasing diversity in the economic experience of gender Elite women and ‘poor women’

Elite women may enjoy similar experience to men because capacity to transfer reproduction costs in poor (often foreign employees). Transfer of activities from household to the market Although professional women tend to be disproportional affected by state restructuring (as concentrated in the state sector. USSR women doctors)

Poor Women: Skills frequently devalued as ‘natural’. Bottom of the Post-Fordist pile. Also disproportionally effected by ‘informalisation’

Conclusion Globalisation is effecting how we define ourselves as Men and Women It is also reshaping gender division of labour (although in this it builds upon existing social understandings)

Gender constructs are critical to whole process of restructuring No real value in arguing globalisation is good/bad for men/women as this ignores other social divisions and diversity of experiences.