Rethinking Theory

Abstract 'Capitalist racist patriarchy' is how Zillah Eisenstein (Citation1998) characterizes global inequalities and the hierarchies of 'difference' they constitute. This article assumes that feminist theory aims not only to 'empower women' but to advance critical analyses of intersecting structural hierarchies; that this entails not only a critique of patriarchy but its complex conjunction with capitalism and racism; and that such critique requires rethinking theory. Through a critical lens on devalued ('feminized') informal work worldwide, the article explores how positivist, modernist and masculinist commitments variously operate in prevailing theories of informality – including those of feminists – with the effect of impeding both intersectional analyses and more adequate critiques of capitalist racist patriarchy. Keywords: critical theory'difference'feminismfeminist theorygenderglobal political economyinformal economyintersectionalityIRmasculinismmodernism Notes Intersectionality signifies 'the complex, irreducible, varied, and variable effects which ensue when multiple axis of differentiation – economic, political, cultural, psychic, subjective and experiential – intersect in historically specific contexts' (Brah and Phoenix Citation2004: 76); also Symington Citation(2004); McCall Citation(2005); European Journal of Women's Studies (Citation2006); Hancock Citation(2007); Frontiers (2009). I am not presuming that all feminists share this agenda; only that it is the basis of this article, which I hope is read with these points in mind. My concern here is that the work of feminist economists and feminist GPE scholars appears less familiar to (is rarely cited by), or integrated within, most feminist IR scholarship. Notes on terminology: I prefer GPE to IPE (international political economy) but use the latter where appropriate in the article. 'Global South' and 'global North' signify social locations of subordination/vulnerability and privilege respectively. When references to 'global' otherwise appear, it is to signal complex processes operating across (and within) nation-states, without presuming these have homogeneous effects. Defining the 'informal' is discussed below; to avoid clumsy phrasing, I use 'informality', 'informalization' and 'informal economic activities' interchangeably in this essay. This article further develops arguments presented in Peterson Citation(2003), where I explored the interdependence of productive, reproductive and virtual (informational, financial) economies – see that work for empirical research and extensive references; citations in this article emphasize more recent scholarship. The quandary theme emerges from research and analysis presented in Peterson and Runyan Citation(2010). Identifying its significance for critical security studies and IPE more generally, I argue for more attention to informalization by IR scholars in Peterson Citation(2010a). On worsening inequalities see Cornia Citation(2004); Wade Citation(2004); Milanovic Citation(2005); ILO (Citation2008). For critical overviews see Rai Citation(2002); Peterson Citation(2003); Scholte Citation(2005); Rupert and Solomon Citation(2006); van Staveren et al. Citation(2007); Marchand and Runyan Citation(2011). On increases in the scale of informal work see Guha-Khasnobis et al. Citation(2006a); Chant and Pedwell Citation(2008); ILO (2008); Barta Citation(2009). The 'feminization' of economic restructuring has been widely noted and researched, for example, Standing Citation(1999); Benería Citation(2003); Peterson Citation(2003); Hoskyns and Rai Citation(2007); Berik et al. Citation(2009). References to 'feminization' throughout this article emphasize the devaluation – ideationally and materially – of ideas, identities, bodies, practices, skills and so on when associated with 'the feminine'/femininity (in contrast to the privileging or 'over-valuation' of that which is associated with – especially, hegemonic – masculinity). This 'connection' and its costs to women and feminized Others is oft-noted and variously documented in feminist scholarship. For theoretical elaboration of this claim and its wider application see Peterson (Citation2007, Citation2009). Controversies regarding definitions and measurement, relationships between, and evaluations of formal and informal pervade the literature. I address these in Peterson Citation(2010a). Harrod Citation(1987) articulates an early and compelling critique of the 'informal economy' as a conceptual category; for recent overviews see also Journal of International Affairs (Citation2000); Portes and Haller Citation(2005); Fernandez-Kelly and Shefner Citation(2006); Guha-Khasnobis et al. Citation(2006a). On the growing 'illicit IPE' in relation to security studies see Andreas Citation(2004); Arnson and Zartman Citation(2005); Peterson (Citation2008, Citation2010a). See Fernandez-Kelly and Shefner Citation(2006) and later 'feminist' section regarding inclusion of domestic, household labor; Guha-Khasnobis et al. (Citation2006b: 7) propose a 'continuum', acknowledging how formal–informal are contested but 'cannot be suppressed – they are now too well ingrained in the academic and policy discourse'. I recognize that debates and controversies attend how to label or specify the positions or commitments depicted here. I do not intend mine as a 'definitive' or uncontested account, only as one that is substantiated by extensive research and accords with well-developed and widely agreed points in the relevant critical literatures. See Peterson Citation(2010a) for a fuller discussion and literature review. 'Mainstream' refers to dominant economic accounts that favor neoclassical premises. Critiques of the positivist, economistic, masculinist and Eurocentric assumptions underpinning orthodox theory and methodologies include Gibson-Graham Citation(1996); Hewitson Citation(1999); Cullenberg et al. Citation(2001); Barker and Kuiper Citation(2003); Ferber and Nelson Citation(2003); Barker and Feiner Citation(2004); Zein-Elabdin and Charusheela Citation(2004); Kaul Citation(2008); Griffin Citation(2009). This perspective underlies policies promoted in recent decades by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Recurring financial crises prompt calls for reform and more 'transparency', but fundamental assumptions do not appear to be disturbed. For overviews of IPE see Crane and Amawi Citation(1997); Katzenstein et al. Citation(1998); Gilpin Citation(2001); Peterson Citation(2003); Miller Citation(2008). Critiques of western-centrism in IR and IPE include Chowdhry and Nair Citation(2002); Barkawi and Laffey Citation(2006); Agathangelou and Ling Citation(2009). For critiques see Rupert and Solomon Citation(2006); Bonacich et al. Citation(2008); Poster and Wilson Citation(2008). For overviews see Murphy and Tooze (1991); Burch and Denemark Citation(1997); Abbott and Worth (Citation2002); Phillips Citation(2005). Capital has historically ensured a supply of labor by eliminating alternative means of livelihood (land enclosures, destroying local industries), directly and indirectly coercing work relations (enslaved, indentured and familial labor) and expanding access to labor geographically (ruralization, colonization, imperialism). A surplus of labor elevates profits by depressing wages (compelling workers to compete with each other) and disciplines all workers through the threat of replacement. For feminist critiques of world systems theory see Ward and Pyle Citation(1995); Dunaway Citation(2001); and of IPE see especially Waylen (Citation2000, Citation2006); Peterson (Citation2003, Citation2005). Feminist adaptations of Marxist and world-systems theory are discussed below. Important contributions include Boserup Citation(1970); Tinker et al. Citation(1976); Benería Citation(1982); Jaquette Citation(1982); Leacock and Safa Citation(1986). Accounts of this shift appear in Waylen Citation(2000); Benería Citation(2003); Griffin Citation(2009). Key here is that 'gender' pervades discourse and collective meaning systems, and the coding it entails 'orders' (governs) our ideational and material practices – not least with respect to who/what is valued. Work on theorizing household labor includes Dalla Costa Citation(1973); Delphy Citation(1984); Gardiner Citation(1997) provides a comprehensive discussion. Chant Citation(1997) discusses the complexity of defining households and offers a preliminary typology of female-headed households. Chant Citation(2007) and Poverty in Focus (2008) also caution against assuming female-headed households are poor. See also the emerging work on 'global householding' (Douglass Citation2006; Politics & Gender Citation2010). While recognizing the problematic nature of data on informality, generalizations presented in this section are widely accepted. See Carr et al. Citation(2000); ILO (Citation2002a); Benería Citation(2003); Snyder Citation(2005); Chen Citation(2006); van Staveren et al. Citation(2007); Chant and Pedwell Citation(2008); Berik et al. Citation(2009). See Peterson Citation(2010a) for more detailed references. On gender and the financial crisis see Gender & Development (Citation2010); Peterson Citation(2010b); Young and Schuberth Citation(2010); Runyan and Marchand Citation(2011). Critiques include Bedford Citation(2009); Bergeron Citation(2009); Griffin Citation(2009); Lind Citation(2010). Discussions featuring pros and cons include Yeoh et al. Citation(2002); Chen Citation(2006); van Staveren et al. Citation(2007); Benería Citation(2008); Parreñas Citation(2008); Poverty in Focus (2008); Peterson and Runyan Citation(2010). See UNRISD (2005); van Staveren et al. Citation(2007); Dejardin Citation(2008); UNIFEM (2008/9); DAW (2009); INSTRAW (Citation2009); Kristof and WuDunn (2009). Sorensen Citation(2005); World Bank Citation(2005); Deneulin Citation(2006); Griffin Citation(2009); INSTRAW (2009). The World Bank has been endorsing microcredit since early Grameen Bank successes; see its 'Gender Equality as Smart Economics', 'Microcredit Summit' and International Finance Corporation websites. See Griffin Citation(2009) for a comprehensive feminist overview. How the current downturn will affect migration and remittances is debated, though results may vary by sector. Because economic inequalities fuel migration, analysts anticipate less a decline in numbers than a shift toward irregular migration (due to anti-migrant politics) and more informal labor in destination countries (IOM no date). See Parreñas (Citation2001, Citation2005, Citation2008); Ehrenreich and Hochschild Citation(2002); Kingma Citation(2006); Pyle Citation(2006); Yeates Citation(2006); Zimmerman et al. Citation(2006); Bakker and Silvey Citation(2008); Benería Citation(2008); Bergeron Citation(2011). See references in note 33, especially Kingma (2006) and Zimmerman et al. Citation(2006) on the global healthcare economy. Critical discussions of these programs – poverty reduction, remittances for development, microfinance – include Bergeron (Citation2003, Citation2011); Kabeer (2008); Zuckerman and Garrett Citation(2003); Sorensen Citation(2005); Benería Citation(2008); Dejardin Citation(2008); van Staveren Citation(2008); Griffin Citation(2009); INSTRAW (2009); Bach Citation(2011). While understandable, the interest of feminist activists in the stability of 'women' (as a homogeneous category) and the interest of feminist scholars in the 'scientific' status of feminist inquiry (as empirical and rationalist) problematically fuel positivist/empiricist and modernist commitments (Hewitson Citation1999; Barker Citation2005; Peterson Citation2005). For critiques see Zein-Elabdin and Charusheela Citation(2004); Kaul Citation(2008); Peterson and Runyan Citation(2010); Marchand and Runyan Citation(2011).