Ridhi D'Cruz
Professor Crowfoot
Social Theory/ Anth 304
Take home test # 3
8th December 2010
Question 1: How do the basic ideas of Marxist class struggle correspond to dependency theory's ideas of development and underdevelopment?
There are many ways in which Marx's basic ideas of class struggle correspond to dependency theory's ideas of development and underdevelopment. I would like to highlight five such corresponding ideas on the relationship between the two groups – the bourgeoisie and proletariat in Marxist theory and between the underdeveloped and developed in dependency theory. I will focus on five similarities between the descriptions of the relationships that both theories offer in terms of their nature; historical continuity from past into present and the process of formation and continuation into the future. I will then look at both theories' descriptions of the disadvantaged group – the proletariat in Marxist theory, and the underdeveloped in dependency theory, as a group forced into a position of disadvantage by inclusion into an exploitative system, rather than exclusion from the system. Lastly, I will look at the commonality in the suggested solutions proposed in both the theories, to the problematized relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat in Marxist theory and between the underdeveloped and developed in dependency theory.
Marx (1971) describes the relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat or “oppressor and oppressed” (81) in terms of the bourgeoisie's “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (82) of the oppressed proletariat. Marx points out that this exploitation occurs because the bourgeoisie has “centralized means of production, and concentrated property in a few hands” (84). Marx says that this has resulted in “political centralization” (84). Similarly, Frank (1970) emphasizes the “evident inequalities” when he describes the relationship between the developed “metropol” (6) and underdeveloped “satellite” (6). Frank goes on to say that the inequality is based on the fact that metropols “suck capital or economic surplus out of its own satellites... and maintain the monopolistic structure and exploitative relationship” (7). We see similar ideas of exploitation and inequality expressed in Marx's (1971) description of the relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat; and in Frank's (1970) description of the relationship between “underdeveloped” and “developed” (4) in dependency theory.
Marx (1971) calls for a historical understanding of exploitation when he says “one fact is common to all ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by another” (Marx 1971:97). He emphasizes the continuity in time of class struggle when he says, “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of old ones” (Marx 1971:81). On very similar lines, Frank (1970) calls for a historical understanding of underdevelopment (4) and says “underdevelopment was and still is generated by the very same historical process which also generated economic development: the development of capitalism itself” (9). Frank also says “historical research demonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and the now-developed metropolitan countries (5). Thus, both theories express that unequal relations between two groups in society travel forward on a time continuum.
Concerning the process through which the two contesting classes of bourgeoisie and proletariat are formed, Marx says that the bourgeoisie “has called into existence .. the modern working class – the proletarians” (86). In other words, Marx says that as the bourgeoise class develops by amassing wealth, it forces into being an impoverished proletariat class. Similarly, in dependency theory, Frank (1970) says that “The structure and development of the capitalist system ...causes a simultaneous generation of underdevelopment in some of its parts and of economic development in others” (4-5). In this way, both Marx and Frank say that as the bourgeoise or developed group are remodeled forms of an oppressive group of people that impoverishes a section of the population and in doing so, creates the proletariat or underdeveloped group.
The next point that I will focus on is the all-encompassing nature of capitalism and the ubiquitous inequality and exploitation associated with it, that both Marx (1971) and Frank (1971) describe. Marx (1971) says that “the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere” (83). He says that the bourgeoise “draws all” (84) nations into its capitalist system. The fact that Marx says that “the entire proletariat” will unite as a class beyond notions of “nationality” (91) hints at the scale at which Marx is talking about his notion of class struggle. Similarly, Franks (1970) states that “the expansion of the capitalist system over the past centuries effectively and entirely penetrated even the apparently most isolated sectors of the underdeveloped world” (6). So it becomes evident that both Marx and Frank believe that capitalism have penetrated all corners of the globe and that no entity is isolated enough to withstand the onslaught of capitalism.
Finally, both theories propose solutions to the structural inequalities propagated by the capitalist system through structural reconstitution. Marx (191) says that just as “the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to” (96) when the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie. Apart from a historical approach, Frank (1970) also asks for a structural approach to understanding development and underdevelopment and says that this can lead to “better development theory and policy” (9). He says that the development of underdeveloped satellites can only occur independent of “diffusing capital, institutions, values, etc.” (5) from the developed metropols. We see that Marx's (1971) solution to ending class struggle is to abolish class itself, and Frank's (1970) solution to rectifying the exploitative relationship between developed metropol and underdeveloped satellites can only occur outside the current structural set up between the two.
I have traced the similarities between the basic ideas of Marx's (1971) description of class struggle and that of dependency theory's ideas on development and underdevelopment by looking at five aspects of the relationship between two polarized groups put forth in both theories – Marx's two classes – the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and Frank's (1970) two groups – the developed “metropol” (6) and the underdeveloped “satellite” (6). I first looked at the exploitative and unequal nature of the relationship described in both Marxist theory and dependency theory. I then looked at this unequal and exploitative relationship on a historical continuum as described in both theories. I then moved on to the formation of the two groups involved in this relationship, as being mutually constituted, as described in both Marxist and dependency theory. Moving beyond the relationship itself, I then looked at the spread of the struggle between Marx's (1971) classes or between developed metropol and underdeveloped satellite through the ubiquitous spread of capitalism described by both theorists. And lastly, I looked at the solutions that Marx and Frank proffer. I highlight the fact that both theorists suggest solutions for the “oppressed” that require drastic structural reconstitutions – a Communist Revolution by the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and then eliminating class in the case of Marx (1971), and a severing of ideological and monetary influence of the developed metropol to enable the development of the underdeveloped satellite as described in dependency theory.
Bibliography
Frank, Andre Gundar
1970 [1966] The Development of Underdevelopment. In Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A Reader. Robert I. Rhodes, ed. Pp. 4-17. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Marx, Karl
1971 [1848] Manifesto of the Communist Party. In On Revolution. Saul K. Padover, ed. Pp. 79-107. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Question 2: In the global economy, why are the wages of many workers (particularly women) so low? Discuss with reference to at least three of the following authors: Barnett (1975), Fernandez-Kelly (1983), Harrison (1997), Nicholson (2006), and Sassen (2002).
The global economy structurally defines low wages for workers from the global south on two geographical scales – within the global south; and also in the north, when the workers migrate. The structural definition of low wages maps onto traditionally low exchange values of labor and occurs as the workers are articulated into the global economy. When these structurally defined low wages interact with ideological constructions of femininity, they work in tandem to further decrease the exchange value of women's work. I will highlight three main areas where the combined effect of ideological and structural construction devalue women's work in the global economy. The first ideological construction of femininity naturalizes women's labor as requiring no additional skill. The second construction naturalizes the submissiveness of women and it's role in preventing women from unionizing. And the third construction naturalizes the responsibilities of women towards the household and its occupants. I will give examples of instances where each ideological construction works in tandem to lower the wages of women working in the global economy.
Barnett (1975) says that workers from the global south are paid low wages when their labor is articulated into the global economy. He says that the low exchange value of labor is “influenced by the traditional prices...directly related to the original value which was assigned to labour” (Barnett 1975:186). This devaluation of labor can be mapped onto Frank's (1970) description of the global economy when it causes “a simultaneous generation of underdevelopment in some of its parts and of economic development in others” (5) through “the structure and development of the capital system (4). Frank uses the metaphor of the developed “metropolis” (6) and underdeveloped “satellite”(6) to explain that “these metropolis-satellite relations are not limited to the imperial or international level but penetrate and structure the very economic, political, and social life of the Latin America colonies and countries” (7). I want to mention straight away that I extend Frank's metaphor to include contexts other than the Latin American context based on a few significant similarities. The metaphor of metropolis-satellite relations can be seen operating at two geographical scales. At the international or macro scale, Frank (1970) describes a developed metropolis and its underdeveloped satellite country. Harrison (1997) emphasizes that international scale underdevelopment is a form of “structural violence” (462) deployed through a “recolonization” (451) of Jamaica. Sassen (2002) carries this forward to say that underdevelopment makes “Third World economies on the periphery of the global system struggle against debt and poverty” (255). At the microlevel within the underdeveloped country, Frank (1970) describes a developed metropolis city and its underdeveloped satellite hinterlands. Fernandez-Kelly's (1983) description of the migration of workers from their hometowns to border areas in Mexico, is an example of microlevel metropolis-satellite relation within an underdeveloped country. I would now like extend Frank's (1970) metaphor to include a third kind of metropolis-satellite relation, as described in Sassen's (2002) “global cities” (255) in the global north, where the metropolis and satellite are superimposed. Sassen explains that the structures of global economy “generate a demand for low-paid service workers. In this way, global cities have become places where large numbers of low-paid women and immigrants get incorporated into strategic economic sectors” (2002:255) that are characterized by a lack of “advancement opportunities” (2002:257). So we see that traditionally low exchange values map onto structurally restrained job positions, to determine the overall lowering of wage for labor from the global south.
Barnett's (1975) explanation of the process in which, traditionally low exchange value for labor lowers the wages of workers from the global south, can now be applied to the specific case of women in the global south. So, I shift focus to three ideological constructions of femininity that are part of the traditional ideology of women's work that map onto the structural qualities of the global economy, to further lower the wages of women. The traditionally influenced and structurally maintained constructions of feminitity work in tandem to “legitimate the superexploitation of the productive and reproductive labor of women” (Harrison 1997:457) while discounting women as “valueless economic actors” (Sassen 2002:256).
The first ideological construction of femininity involves the naturalization of women's labor as unskilled labor. Harrison (1997) provides an example for this when she quotes Safa (1994):
transnational garment production has taken advantage of and reinforced patriarchal
assumptions that activities such as sewing are “natural” women's tasks requiring no
special skill, training, or compensation; that jobs defined as skilled belong to men,
who deserve to be remunerated for their special physical strength and training. (Harrison 1997:457)
The second ideological construction of femininity naturalizes the submissive behavior that women are expected to exhibit. Fernandez-Kelly (1983) explains that women constitute “85 percent of those working in the export manufacturing plants along the Mexican border” (209), explaining that the women are hired “because of their willingness to comply with monotonous, repetitive and highly exhausting work assignments; and because of their docility which discourages organizing efforts by union leaders” (219). The third ideological construction of femininity naturalizes the role of women in taking care of the household unit. Harrison (1997) explains that women “have the responsibility – whether formally employed or not – to support households and family networks” (456). As a result, women are even less likely to unionize because of the multiple forces acting on them concurrently. Fernandez-Kelly (1983) explains that international capitalism milks exploitative profits from the economic needs of Mexican women working on the border in maquilodoras because these women “enter the labor market as members of households for whose subsistence their wages are fundamental” (217) and thus represent the “most vulnerable sector of the population” (219).
When workers from the global south are being articulated into the global economy, traditionally low exchange values of labor decrease wages as the workers are being articulated into the global economy. The structure of the global economy maintains these positions of low wage workers, offering little vertical mobility. These are manifested in underdevelopment that occurs at three geographical levels and demonstrate permutations and combinations of underdevelopement that are mediated by a number of factors especially that of gender. Taking the case of women, who are described to constitute a vast proportion of the migrant labor force, the traditionally low exchange value of women's labor is mediated by gender. The gendered mediation occurs through ideological constructions of femininity, three of which I have highlighted. The constructions of femininity act in tandem with the structurally restrictive global economy to further lower the position of women within the international capitalist system and the wages these women are able to earn.
Bibliography
Barnett, Tony
1975 The Gezira Scheme: Production of Cotton and the Reproduction of Underdevelopment. In Beyond the Sociology of Development: Economy and Society in Latin America and Africa. Oxaal, Barnett and Booth, eds. Pp. 183-207. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fernandez-Kelly, Maria Patricia
1983 Mexican Border Industrialization, Female Labor Force Participation and Migration. In Women, Men and the International Division of Labor. June Nash and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly, eds. Pp. 205-223. Albany: SUNY Press.
Frank, Andre Gundar
1970 [1966] The Development of Underdevelopment. In Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A Reader. Robert I. Rhodes, ed. Pp. 4-17. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Harrison, Faye V.
1997 The Gendered Politics and Violence of Structural Adjustment. In Situated Lives: Gender and Culture in Everyday Life. Lamphere, Ragone and Zavella, eds. Pp. 451-468. New York: Routledge.
Sassen, Saskia
2002 Global Cities and Survival Circuits. In Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild, eds. Pp. 254-274. New York: Metropolitan Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment