Rethinking the legacies of "subsistence thinking" (original) (raw)
I argue that one way to start rethinking subsistence is to “queer” our notions of it, which includes understanding subsistence not as separate from but as linked to a larger economy. The concept of “queering the economy” comes from J.K. Gibson-Graham, the pen name of cultural geographers Julie Graham and Katherine Gibson.1 Briefly, Gibson- Graham query assumptions about the total dominance of capitalism, what they call “capitalocentrism.” As feminist economic geographers, they explore the existence of realms of social life and work that go on outside of – but of course, always in relationship to – capitalist logics, from unpaid housework and volunteerism to other community-focused activities that sustain societies, arguing that these diverse forms of work fall outside of capitalist relations of exchange. Inspired by Eve Sedgwick’s scholarship, this is what they refer to as “queering the economy,” by which they mean uncovering the many aspects of social worlds that diverge from dominant and dominating expectations.2 To make another analogy, Gibson-Graham say that we can argue that the United States is a predominantly Christian nation, but this notion obscures a great wealth of actually existing beliefs and religions. Likewise, the claim that the United States is capitalist is generally true but fails to recognize a vast wealth of activities that are not fully explained by capitalist rationales. In part, they define “capitalism” in narrow and specific terms – as wage labour, where owners profit from the surplus labour of workers – in order to reveal an existing diverse economy. They also encourage others to expand the diverse economy in ways that could increase social equity.
Related papers
Beyond waged work: The everyday politics of alternative socio-economic practices
Within geography and beyond there has been much discussion about how to best respond to the mounting inequalities, pressing environmental concerns and socio-economic precarity that appear to characterise current neoliberal capitalist societies. Kathi Weeks (2011) suggests that contemporary forms of precarity are linked to dominant discourses around waged labour which she terms the ‘work society’. This work society is characterised by three inter-related expectations that frame waged work as morally necessary, as the primary right to citizenship, and as the main way to participate in wider society. Weeks argues that these expectations have increased since the global financial crisis, yet paradoxically there are fewer secure and meaningful waged jobs available. In response to these socio-economic and environmental concerns, feminist autonomous geographers like J-K Gibson-Graham (2006) argue that the best way to respond is to ‘take back the economy’ at local scales. Rather than ‘overt...
The analysis of global sexual economies has emerged not only as an important area of enquiry in its own right but also as part of a broader feminist agenda to re-map the conceptual and empirical terrain of the study of global capitalism. Yet 'few have explicitly addressed how heteronormativity itself underscores their own research conclusions about sexual consumption and identities [nor] the limiting nature of masculinities and femininities as inscribed in cultural and institutional practices [and] arrangements of intimacy' (Lind 2010a: 49). This chapter considers what it might mean to queer the study of global sexual economies and argues that it is not enough simply to add queer and stir to the study of commercial sex by including discussion of non-normative sexual identities and practices. Rather, it takes up the overarching theme of this edited collection to contend that we also need to do queer to (instead of just looking at what it means to be queer in) globalisation and capitalism by revealing and contesting the heteronormative gender logics that continue to frame scholarship on, and political debates about, global sexual economies. Yet, while commercial sex can itself be viewed as being ‘outside the (hetero)norm’ (Smith and Laing 2012: 517), it both subverts and (re)produces gendered, sexualised, racialised and classed power relations.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.