By Christine Rosen
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
In an episode of the NBC sitcom 30 Rock, the
narcissistic actress Jenna (played brilliantly by Jane Krakowski) and her
boyfriend Paul (Will Forte), who had spent their relationship thus far
indulging in one weird fetish after another, suddenly find themselves lapsing
into a comfortable, mundane existence. Horrified at the thought that they were
like any other couple, they recast activities like going to bed early and
grocery shopping as an entirely new fetish they called “normaling.” (Not surprisingly,
their attempt at relationship normcore
ends when they are mocked by their normal peers).
The fetishization of the normal appears to much less
comic effect in a recent, flattering profile
of socialist feminist scholar Silvia Federici in the New York Times Magazine.
Federici, we are told, “is a longtime advocate of the idea that domestic work
is unwaged labor and was a founder of the Wages for Housework movement in the
early 1970s.” Housework, Federici argues, “is a form of gendered economic oppression”
and “an exploitation upon which all of capitalism rests.”
Federici isn’t just displeased with housework. “Nearly
everything,” she argues, “has become ‘enclosed’ within capitalism: not just
property and land but also our bodies, our time, our modes of education, our
health, our relationships, our attention, our minds.” Her solution to this
totalizing force is something she calls “commoning.” The Times describes
the practice as follows: “Instead of your hiring a handyman, a neighbor might
come to your house to help install your ceiling fan; in exchange, you might
help him, or someone else, with his taxes or pet-sitting or garden work.”
If, like most people, you read this description and
think, “Isn’t that just being a decent person and helpful friend and neighbor?”
you clearly haven’t been properly steeped in radical socialist economics.
According to Frederici, “commoning” is “a powerful and rare experience as that
of being part of something larger than our individual lives, of dwelling on
‘this earth of mankind’ not as a stranger or a trespasser, which is the way
capitalism wishes us to relate to the spaces we occupy, but as home.”
Whatever “commoning” is, it, along with Federici’s
argument in favor of wages for housework, is becoming more mainstream. As the Times
notes, “In the last year, she has been cited over and over in popular
publications—from The New Yorker to The Atlantic to The Cut
to Teen Vogue.”
“Everyday life is the primary terrain of social change,”
Federici says, and it’s worth examining what she means by this: That caring for
one’s children and home is exploitive; that any pleasure one might derive from
doing so is merely an expression of false consciousness; that society owes
those who perform such “reproductive labor” not merely relief from the “second
shift” but wages for doing such work at all. As Samuel Hammond of the Niskanen
Center recently told the Times, “I do think it’s a market failure in
capitalist economies that there isn’t a parenting wage.”
Such proposals come at the same time that many on the
progressive left are also advocating for a Universal Basic Income because, as
Jamila Michener, co-director of Cornell’s Center for Health Equity, told
Times columnist Ezra Klein, “There’s no natural dignity in work.” This
is a departure from the message President Joe Biden promoted on the campaign
trail. As he said
during a Democratic primary debate, “My dad used to have an expression. He
said, Joe, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity.
It’s about respect.”
Is dignity to be found in paying people for the tasks
they perform in their private lives? Or paying them for raising their children
(as even Republican Senator Mitt Romney has suggested with his recent child
allowance proposal?) Or can dignity only occur when the government pays
everyone an income regardless of whether or not they work at all?
One need not idealize the Sisyphean tasks of daily
life—the cleaning, cooking, and caring for others—to understand that doing them
has a worth not measurable in dollars. But context matters. Socialists like
Federici would prefer that the context always be political. In their view, no
private act is without political significance. Therefore, nothing one chooses
to do in one’s home should be free from government intervention (and ideally,
payment).
In practice, Federici’s approach suffers from the same
totalizing worldview as the capitalists she excoriates.
For socialists like Federici (and for an increasing
number of progressive activists who embrace such ideas), private acts can be
made meaningful only if they are put to political purpose, namely, the
destruction of capitalism. As Federici argued in a 1975 essay, “Wages Against
Housework”: “To say that we want wages for housework is to expose the fact that
housework is already money for capital, that capital has made and makes money
out of our cooking, smiling, [expletive that describes sexual intercourse].”
The current debate about wages, housework, “commoning”
and the dignity of labor does create an opportunity for conservatives to
reiterate their values if they are willing to take it. A common theme emerges
in these debates that has nothing to do with government payment for private
domestic labor, or a universal basic income, or even the creation of
“commoning” socialist utopias. It’s the importance of bonds of community that
develop organically, steeped in a particular place, or among people who share
specific beliefs, who have made a commitment to care for one another.
Republicans and Democrats can wrangle over policy
solutions in the form of tax credits or child payments or universal basic
incomes. But if you lack a sense of community (as far too many Americans do,
particularly after a year of pandemic lockdowns and the ensuing retreat from
public space), a check from the government will not fill that void.
No comments:
Post a Comment