[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Maria Mies: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
c/e per GA review
c/e per GA review
Line 50:
Mies's earliest works such as ''Indian Women in Patriarchy'' (1980) and ''The Lace Makers of Narsapur'' (1982), which evaluated her years in India, as well as later works like "Sexist and Racist Implications of New Reproductive Technology" (''Alternatives'', 1987) critiqued policies aimed at maintaining an uneven, stratified societal structure which encouraged domination and exploitation.<ref name="Léveillé" >{{cite journal |last1=Léveillé |first1=Danielle |title=Comptes Rendus: Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale Women in the International Division of Labour. Zed Books Ltd, Third World Books, New Jersey, 1986, 251 pages. |journal=Recherches Féministes |date=1988 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=149–152 |doi=10.7202/057523ar |url=https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rf/1988-v1-n2-rf1638/057523ar/ |access-date=20 May 2023 |trans-title=Proceedings: Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale Women in the International Division of Labour. Zed Books Ltd, Third World Books, New Jersey, 1986, 251 pages. |publisher=[[Université Laval]] |location=Quebec City, Quebec |language=French |issn=0838-4479|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806021405/https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rf/1988-v1-n2-rf1638/057523ar/ |archive-date=6 August 2022 }}</ref>{{rp|149}} She sought to evaluate how women's labour became hidden and how the perception that women were reliant upon a husband's income emerged. She theorised that by eliminating pay for the work women performed, making them available at all times for labour, alienating them from society by keeping them in the home, giving them no job security, and eliminating their ability to contract or [[Trade union|unionise]], women lost [[Agency (sociology)|agency]]. She named the process which prevented women from being seen as producers or self-employed individuals and resulted in their exploitation, "housewifisation".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Teixeira |first1=Mylene N. |last2=Strazzeri |first2=Victor |title=Tradução do Verbete: Hausfrauisierung (H). Frigga Haug. Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus, HKWM Band 5. Berlin 2001, 1209–1215. |journal=Revista Estudos Feministas |date=2001 |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=1–6 |doi=10.1590/1806-9584-2018v26n256412 |url=http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v26n2/1806-9584-ref-26-02-e56412.pdf |access-date=20 May 2023 |trans-title=Translation Entry: Housewifisation (H). Frigga Haug. Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism, HKWM Volume 5. Berlin 2001, 1209–1215. |publisher=Instituto de Estudos de Genero, [[Federal University of Santa Catarina|Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]] |location=Florianópolis, Brazil |s2cid=150292239 |language=Portuguese |issn=0104-026X}}</ref>{{Rp|2}} The anthropologist Danielle Léveillé characterised Mies's works as both "masterful" and "astonishing" in that she was able to link variables from the [[Decolonization|anti-colonial]], [[Anti-racism|anti-racist]], ecology, feminist, and [[Nonviolence|non-violence]] movements to critique policies that established power relationships in society.<ref name="Léveillé" />{{rp|149}}
 
Political scientist {{ill|Elisabeth Prügl|wikidata|Q58195777}} pointed to Mies's connection of the threads in society that united women, colonized people, and nature as being free for exploitation. The unpaid labour of the former was easily equated to the free availability of air and water.<ref name=Prügl>{{cite journal |last1=Prügl |first1=Elisabeth |title=Home-Based Workers: A Comparative Exploration of Mies's Theory of Housewifization |journal=[[Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies]] |date=January 1996 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=114–135 |doi=10.2307/3346904 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3346904 |access-date=21 May 2023 |publisher=[[University of Nebraska Press]] |location=Lincoln, Nebraska |jstor=3346904 |issn=0160-9009 |oclc=5546263196}}</ref>{{rp|115}} Prügl tested Mies's theory that housewives were superexploited and confirmed that they were. Using data from the [[International Labour Organization]], she found that housewives universally earned less than the legal minimum wage.<ref name=Prügl />{{rp|116}} However, inIn looking at homemakers in Brazil, Britain, Pakistan, Thailand, and Turkey, while Prügl confirmed that housewives were typically viewed as non-workers,.<ref name=Prügl />{{rp|129}} However, she found that there was not a universal acceptance by women, or their various societies, of the cultural and political meaning of housewifery and its value.<ref name=Prügl />{{rp|129–130}} She concluded that because of the "multiple contextual meanings" of the term housewife, exploitation more likely resulted from the political, rather than economic, spread of [[capitalism]].<ref name=Prügl />{{rp|130}} Prügl questioned whether housewifisation as an underpinning of capitalism failed to evaluate whether exploitation was instead related to global patriarchy.<ref name=Prügl />{{rp|116}}
 
From the mid-1980s, Mies published her most important works which explored the links between patriarchy, capitalism and [[colonialism]] in the exploitation and subjugation of women.<ref name="Bauer" />
In the book ''Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale Women in the International Division of Labour'' (1986), Mies evaluated the development of feminism, the sexual division of labour, and how violence shaped politics in Africa, Asia, and [[Latin America]].<ref name="Léveillé" /> In her analysis, the process of "housewifisation" was based on the Western ideals of capital accumulation,. meaningIn thatother words, by destroying women's autonomy and making them possessions, men were able to acquire productive capital and amass wealth. She saw family violence, not as a remnant of ancient society, but as a part of the processes to modernise. In the work, she notedfound that socialist development had created similar social structures limitingexploiting women and argued for creation of a utopian feminist society.<ref name="Léveillé" />{{rp|150}} In Mies's vision, the basis for worklabour would be usefulness rather than accumulation,. She theorized that allowingif consumers in overdeveloped places to fulfillfulfilled their needs to sustain life from producers in underdeveloped countries, it would gaininggive worldwide relief from exploitation.<ref name="Léveillé" />{{rp|150–151}} Léveillé noted that while such a plan might work, its drawback was that it devalued things like music, flowers, and art, which while not essential or necessary to support human life provided therapeutic benefits.<ref name="Léveillé" />{{rp|151}}
 
Picking up themes of domination from ''Patriarchy and Accumulation'', Mies's 1988 book ''Women: The Last Colony'', written with social scientists Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen and [[Claudia von Werlhof]], expanded on themes of domination bringingbrought colonised people into the analysis. They explained that just as women were rendered invisible, subjugated people were isolated from mainstream society and were treated as a natural resource to be exploited.<ref name="Meintel" />{{rp|388}} Departing from a strict [[Marxist feminism|Marxist feminist]] argument, the central theme of the work was that the exploitation and oppression of women and colonised people were not secondary results caused by capitalism, but fundamental to creating the mechanisms of global production.<ref name="Meintel" />{{rp|388–389}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilkinson-Weber |first1=Clare M. |title=Skill, Dependency, and Differentiation: Artisans and Agents in the Lucknow Embroidery Industry |journal=[[Ethnology (journal)|Ethnology]] |date=Winter 1997 |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=49–65 |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_ethnology_winter-1997_36_1/page/n53/mode/1up |access-date=21 May 2023 |publisher=[[University of Pittsburgh Press]] |location=Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |doi=10.2307/3773935 |jstor=3773935 |issn=0014-1828 |oclc=7781060900}}</ref>{{rp|50}} {{Lang|fr|[[Université de Montréal]]|italic=no}} anthropology professor, {{ill|Deirdre Meintel|wikidata|Q55626697}}, noted that Mies argued that labour exploitation was a primary factor in developing both social classes and economic divisions.<ref name="Meintel" />{{rp|390}} Meintel also notedsaid that Mies's chapter 7, "Class Struggles and Women's Struggles in India", was "worth the price of the book", as it told of the successful resistance by women in [[Andhra Pradesh]], who aligned with male peasants' fight to protect their rights.<ref name="Meintel" />{{rp|390}}
''Ecofeminism'' (1993), witten by Mies and Vandana Shiva used a Marxist approach to evaluate climate change, loss of diversity, multi-systemic failures, and resistance. They evaluated how production systems and accumulation caused dispossession of land and culture, leading to problems such as world hunger.<ref name="Andrieu & Eliosoff">{{cite journal |last1=Andrieu |first1=Jimena |last2=Eliosoff Ferrero |first2=María Julia |title=Crisis multisistémicas y resistencias en los territorios latinoamericanos. Diálogo con Maria Mies y Vandana Shiva desde el ecofeminismo |journal=Cuadernos de Economía Crítica |date=2019 |volume=5 |issue=10 |pages=171–177 |url=https://doaj.org/article/d0baa90f891a4090ab1efd7dcf1c75d6 |access-date=20 May 2023 |trans-title=Multisystemic Crises and Resistance in Latin American Territories: Dialogue with Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva about Ecofeminism |publisher=Sociedad de Economía Crítica de Argentina y Uruguay |location=Buenos Aires, Argentina |language=Spanish |issn=2408-400X |oclc=9456617883}}</ref>{{rp|171–172}} Mies and Shiva argued that women were linked internationally by their common experiences related to capitalist expansion. According to the environmental scholar [[Catriona Sandilands]], unlike other ecofeminist works the book demonstrated that despite geographical differences and socio-economic variances "women's lives and bodies are being colonised" through capitalist mechanisms.<ref name="Sandilands" />{{rp|97–98}} Yet, Sandilands also said that gender was not the only factor involved in creating capitalist inequalities, and that basing their theory on that single premise, is flawed. She stated that especially given the lack of evidence that women collectively have ever universally shared experiences, the claim that subsistence activities can solve global distribution problems might be romanticizing their proposed solution.<ref name="Sandilands" />{{rp|98}} The book was updated and republished in 2014, concluding that the issues were worsening instead of improving, and translated into Spanish in 2016.<ref name="Andrieu & Eliosoff" />{{rp|171–172}} Evaluating the links between technology and science and cultural development, Jimena Andrieu and María Julia Eliosoff Ferrero, noted that Mies and Shiva pointed out that globalisation has led to a crisis by [[Commodification|commodifying]] and [[Privatization|privatising]] everything to increase production and profits, thereby reducing human freedoms.<ref name="Andrieu & Eliosoff" />{{rp|173}} They argued that by placing nurturing of life and health as the focal point of economics, a balance between society, the economy, and the ecosystem is restored.<ref name="Andrieu & Eliosoff" />{{rp|174}} The re-issuance of the book sparked new debate on the roles of women in activist movements in the Global South. With large sectors of the population unemployed and living in poverty, the turn toward subsistence and producing only goods that sustain life becomes questionable, according to Andrieu and Eliosoff.<ref name="Andrieu & Eliosoff" />{{rp|175}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Mies"