Environment Global Problems And The Culture Of Capitalism Pdf


Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Global-Problems-and-the-Culture-of-Capitalism-6TH-Edition (2).pdf - Free ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online for. PDF | Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Richard H. Robbins. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. Visit to contact your local Allyn & Bacon/ Longman representative. GLOBAL PROBLEMS AND THE. CULTURE OF CAPITALISM.

Global Problems And The Culture Of Capitalism Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, Arabic
Published (Last):16.04.2016
ePub File Size:16.74 MB
PDF File Size:8.70 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: STEPHANY

Global Problems and the. Culture of Capitalism. Richard H. Robbins. State University of New York at Plattsburgh. Rachel A. Dowty. University of. SA DEPARTMENT – GLOBAL PROBLEMS COURSE OUTLINE SA W Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism Spring Richard Hutchings. Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Richard H. Robbins. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. Publication cover.

Capitalism is a dynamic and aggressive mode of production which as such, penetrates all social relations. For example, capitalism did not hesitate to make mass calls for very cheap female and child labour in the early 19th century, in order to increase production and thus profits.

With the delocalisation of traditional or cutting-edge industries, in North Africa, Latin America or Asia, employers, in search of new profits, recruit young women into the labour market. These young, exploited, working women have nevertheless been able to acquire a certain financial independence from the men of the family, leading them to demand freedom in many domains.

At the same time, in the developed capitalist countries, more and more of the activities previously kept within the family are externalized, taken care of in the first instance by public services such as schools and health institutions, or increasingly dealt with through the market: the making of clothes, meals, and so on.

Capitalism, while favouring a certain emancipation of women for the sake of profit, nevertheless remains very attached to the traditional family institution. In our societies, the family plays a fundamental role in reproducing the divisions, as well as the hierarchy, between the different social classes and genders to which different social and economic functions are assigned. As for men, they are always supposed to be the main economic purveyors.

All this makes it possible, in the context of professional segregation and in the name of the so-called complementary roles, to carry on underpaying women on a discriminatory basis. In times of economic expansion, as was the case for about thirty years until the early s, women are massively called upon as cheap labour in a number of manufacturing industries such as electronics, then as wage-earners in the service industry.

If women were not perceived as those who are in charge of those chores within the family, a substantial reduction of working time for all and a significant development of social facilities would have to be introduced. Nonetheless, partisans of the capitalist social order do not hesitate to defend a family order based on hierarchical differences between genders.

For instance, the hottest partisans of the traditional family consider that rehabilitated paternal authority ought to dam and wall in the possible outbursts of anger among marginalized youths in the poorer urban areas. Lastly, and this may at first seem to contradict the previous point, the family offers a huge advantage: it is a relatively flexible institution its forms have significantly diversified over the past thirty years.

It can be used as a safety valve for the constraints wage-earners have to face on the workplace. Most people can choose neither their work, nor their working conditions. Advertising is intended to maintain this illusion. This sense of freedom is still limited by essential factors: financial resources, gender and age. Because they are still seen as responsible for domestic chores, and because of the domestic violence they are still too often subjected to, women know all too well the limits of their freedom.

These various elements go some way to explaining why the family is still a fundamental support to capitalist society.

Therefore, contrary to what some feminists seem to believe, it is difficult to imagine how the liberation of women of all women, not just of a tiny minority , could be achieved in a capitalist system. This is why we deem it necessary, whatever the conflicts involved, to bring together the struggle of women against patriarchal oppression and the struggle of wage-earners against capitalist exploitation. Historical Background The position of women in so-called primitive societies prehistoric times Subsistence economies e.

Nobody could appropriate resources without endangering collective survival.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

This made for social equality. According to what we read in works by anthropologists and historians: in the primitive group, we observe mobility among male and female individuals, with free adhesion and no discrimination; however where hunting became predominant in the social organization, abduction of women was practised so as to ensure the necessary reproduction of men; other instances, such as the importance of goddesses in mythology, tend to show that women were given social recognition.

The first farming communities: cooperative organization of labour Social gender equality and collective property of resources and means of production were still the rule, with land, too, a collective property for common use. Such societies did have some sort of division of labour between men and women. Women had specific tasks such as ploughing the fields, pottery and weaving, but such gender division did not result in the oppression of women or in their exclusion from the public arena and their confinement to the family circle.

Not only did women take part in productive activities but they still played a part in the social organization: - they were members of the village council; - some societies were matrilineal line of descent through mothers ; - in some societies the education of children was a collective responsibility. However, in some of these societies men could be observed taking over power so as to control reproduction and thus keep up the number of producers. Social surplus production and the emergence of social classes.

Ancient societies.

The accumulation of resources, the development of productive forces and tools time not required for survival could be devoted to designing and making tools , led to surplus production.

This resulted in social classes since some considered this surplus as their own property and wanted it to increase. At the same time in Antiquity, around BC we observe the development of slavery - first of prisoners from conquered territories and peoples; later also because of unpaid debts — and of the State. The function of the State was to guarantee that ruling classes could maintain their ownership of social surplus through institutions that excluded other members of the community from political functions: power belonged to hereditary lords, kings or noblemen.

They set up an army, a civil service, a judiciary power, and producers of ideology scholars, teachers who were to make sure that the domination of those who appropriated wealth was accepted by all. The position of women changed radically: generalized patrilinearity: the new notion of inheritance and the transmission of property through the male line led to the importance of having male offspring whose lineage was beyond contest.

Women then became pieces of property themselves, since they were perceived as mothers first and foremost, and at the same time, fathers acquired absolute power over their children see Roman law and the abduction of women, for instance the story of the battle between the Horatii and the Curiatii. As ancient societies developed, rich owners acquired public responsibilities and political functions; women were excluded from them no voting rights and were made responsible for the home so that men could be freed from any domestic chores to assume their responsibilities outside and freed from the responsibility of educating children to ensure the transmission of property.

Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History

It could be objected that this only concerned women of the ruling classes. Indeed the other women worked in the fields, in manufacturing or in the silver mines in Athens, for example. But in those cases, too, working women also had to do the household chores because there was no longer cooperative organization of labour the family remained a production unit - and they were also assigned the role of reproducing the labour force.

Precapitalist societies. Feudal societies. The situation of women changed in the course of time. In rural societies there was still a gender division of labour. We note that women: still had the function of reproducing the labour force.

Indeed the family was still a unit of production and consumption, the two being closely related, with some goods intended for family consumption and others for exchange purposes.

During this period the situation of women was in fact fluctuating and contradictory: they were kept indoors and excluded from public life, but the family was a shifting entity; for instance, widowhood and remarriage were frequent; enlarged families or family regrouping were needed to survive and produce; there were ties of solidarity. So at times, women were subjected to less pressure: e.

In some cases their productive labour was recognized: e. The period of commercial capitalism and factory development As commercial capitalism took form, followed by mechanization, the situation of women deteriorated. Moreover, the role of the family was to change with the formation of the bourgeois State.

Merchants rented out production equipment for example, a weaving loom to the family, brought them the raw materials and would come back to collect the finished product in exchange for wages. Another consequence of manufacturing growth was that the family was transformed from a production unit to a consumption unit.

Beforehand, peasant families produced the necessities of life. In the process of capitalist development, products once produced within families were produced outside the home. From then on, domestic labour became devalued, viewed as not producing goods which could be destined for exchange, and no longer recognized as socially necessary.

Much later on, this devaluation Devaluation A lowering of the exchange rate of one currency as regards others. From this standpoint, bourgeois marriages were above all business arrangements and the family also became the means of passing on social norms.

At this time, the 18th century this bourgeois family model only existed amongst the dominant classes. This would change. The industrial revolution and proletarianization of women At the time of factory mechanization during the industrial revolution, the bourgeoisie advocated the bourgeois family model for the working class: Nuclear family parents and children Women had to ensure the reproduction of the labour force: the men must be rested and ready to ensure production; children, as future producers, could no longer run through the streets and fields: they had to be prepared for their turn to go down the mines.

Within the working class family, the father could rule as the master and leave external political authority to others.

Log in with your society membership

However, these plans clashed with the reality of the industrial revolution, which made women proletarians too. Indeed, at the time of 19th-century industrial expansion, everyone was mobilized to work in mines or the textile industry… including women and children. They were confined to tasks that were often dangerous, for lower wages. All this constituted a series of perils for the bourgeoisie who were no longer in control of the situation. This ideology meant all women, whether or not they were part of the labour force, had to view home life as their main responsibility.

The creation of public schools had an ideological function Jules FERRY and the teaching of morals and an economic function training skilled workers at the end of the 19th century and above all in the early 20th century.

In this way, I hope to help revive the sort of socialist-feminist theorizing that first inspired me decades ago and that still seems to offer our best hope for clarifying the prospects for gender justice in the present period. My aim, however, is not to recycle outmoded dual-systems theories, but rather to integrate the best of recent feminist theorizing with the best of recent critical theorizing about capitalism.

To clarify the rationale behind this approach, let me explain my dissatisfaction with what is perhaps the most widely held view of second-wave feminism.

Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (6th Edition)

This assessment is doubled-edged: on the one hand, feminist ideals of gender equality, so contentious in the preceding decades, now sit squarely in the social mainstream; on the other hand, they have yet to be realized in practice. Thus, feminist critiques of, for example, sexual harassment, sexual trafficking and unequal pay, which appeared incendiary not so long ago, are widely espoused today; yet this sea-change at the level of attitudes has by no means eliminated those practices.

There is something to be said for this view, which rightly notes the widespread acceptance today of feminist ideas. But the thesis of cultural success-cum-institutional failure does not go very far in illuminating the historical significance and future prospects of second-wave feminism.

Positing that institutions have lagged behind culture, as if one could change while the other did not, it suggests that we need only make the former catch up with the latter in order to realize feminist hopes. The effect is to obscure a more complex, disturbing possibility: that the diffusion of cultural attitudes born out of the second wave has been part and parcel of another social transformation, unanticipated and unintended by feminist activists—a transformation in the social organization of postwar capitalism.

This possibility can be formulated more sharply: the cultural changes jump-started by the second wave, salutary in themselves, have served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society that runs directly counter to feminist visions of a just society.The extension of universal adult male suffrage in 19th-century Britain occurred along with the development of industrial capitalism and democracy became widespread at the same time as capitalism, leading capitalists to posit a causal or mutual relationship between them.

But the thesis of cultural success-cum-institutional failure does not go very far in illuminating the historical significance and future prospects of second-wave feminism.

The 7th Edition provides updated content that reflects the changes in the world since the last edition and introduces the content in a reader-friendly and engaging way. Please try again. A research semester at the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh would count as one of his most stimulating intellectual experiences. Returning user.

The first farming communities: cooperative organization of labour Social gender equality and collective property of resources and means of production were still the rule, with land, too, a collective property for common use.

It is also a way to codify the subordination of women in the representation of the body. By largely replacing small-scale commercial production in the domains of agriculture and the crafts with big industry, capitalism made the separation between the sites of production the workplace and of reproduction the family increasingly distinct, assigning to women the role of responsibility for the home.