Back to homepage...

Chapter 4

Multiple Identities, Multiple Strategies:
Confronting State, Capital and Patriarchy

Amrita Chhachhi and Renee Pittin

This chapter is based on reflections arising from research on women factory workers over a number of years. The issues and questions in each phase of research changed as our own understanding grew, along with changes in the general political and economic environment. In spite of variations in research objectives, there were certain common themes concerning the ways in which women were perceived and their self perception as workers, and as women, the possibilities and the limits to organising, the differences between the interests of women and men workers as well as the differences between women workers themselves. In the first section of this chapter we discuss the theoretical implications of the relationship between identity, consciousness and strategies. The second section looks at existing struggles within the theoretical perspective elaborated earlier.

Considerable work has been done in recent years on women's employment, locating features ranging from restructuring at an international level to labour control on the factory floor and the use of gender divisions to place women workers in low paid, unskilled, part time and casual jobs (D. Elson & R. Pearson, 1981; Swasti Mitter, 1986; N. Redclift & E. Mingione, 1985). Theories of women's employment have moved from a critique of dual labour markets and orthodox Marxist categories to highlighting the linkage between production and reproduction, domestic labour and wage labour and the necessity to study gender construction within the labour process as well as within the sexual division of labour in the household (V. Beechey, 1986).

One theoretical area which remains `underdeveloped' is the question of women workers' consciousness. The issue of consciousness is essential to any discussion on strategies for organising, and in this chapter we will explore certain areas which link identity, consciousness and strategy. The relationship between perception and action is extremely complicated. We examine two approachs - the marxist and post-structuralist feminist analyses of the relationship between identity, consciousness and strategy, and then elaborate a tentative framework.

The dominant model in orthodox Marxist debates has been the model of dual consciousness initiated by K. Kautsky and Lenin, and systematised by G. Lukacs. On the one hand is actual consciousness, i.e. what the worker normally thinks, and on the other hand is ascribed consciousness, i.e. the consciousness that the worker ought to have given his position within the production process. Identity in this formulation is singular, fixed and derived from positioning in the production process. This model not only constructed an ideal type model of class consciousness, but it also assumed a one-to-one correspondence between the objective class structure and consciousness. Further, this conception transferred the locus of radical consciousness from the working class to the intelligentsia. Since classes are seen as passive objects determined by economic functions, their conciousness is also seen as completely controlled by dominant ideologies. The concept of `false consciousness` not only ignores the existence of `everyday forms of resistance', but also reduces a worker's identity to that of class positionality. 

An alternative to the above orthodox problematic was developed through rich historical studies of the `moral economy' and resistance of working classes and slaves in the work of E.P. Thompson and E. Genovese, as well as more specific studies of the labour process and the politics around the points of production by M. Burawoy. (E.P. Thompson, 1963; E. Genovese, 1974; M. Burawoy, 1985) These studies have highlighted that there is no `objective' notice of class prior to its appearance in action, as for example in Thompson's well-known formulation of class as a `happening' whereby classes are constituted in history. Rejecting the distinction between `objective' and `subjective' as arbitrary, Burawoy also emphasizes the need to look at the formation of consciousness as an effect of the combination of economic, political and ideological realms. He also highlights the formation of a specific type of consciousness arising specifically from the structures of the workplace. Instead of the notion of `habituation' used by H. Braverman, which refers to an extreme form of objectification, eliminating the subjective moment, Burawoy uses `adaptation' and examines, in the struggles over the labour process, the ways in which `fragmented arenas of subjectivity expand into collective struggle, or, more narrowly, under what conditions... adaptation turn[s] into resistance' (M. Burawoy, 1985:76).

The application of Gramsci's notion of `commonsense', the discovery of counter hegemonic discourses developed by subaltern groups, and the acknowledgement of covert forms of resistance in recent historical and contemporary studies have opened the way towards developing a more `grounded' theory of consciousness (A. Gramsci, 1985; J. Scott, 1985; also see the work of the Subaltern Studies group). For instance James Scott, in his sensitive study of peasant resistance through the creation of an oppositional culture, points out that:

Class after all, does not exhaust the total explanatory space of social actions. ...within the peasant village, ...class may compete with kinship, neighbourhood, faction, and ritual links as foci of human identity and solidarity. Beyond the village level, it may also compete with ethnicity, language group, religion, and region as a focus of loyalty. Class may be applicable to some situations but not to others; it may be reinforced or crosscut by other ties; it may be far more important for the experience of some than of others. Those who are tempted to dismiss all principles of human action that contend with class identity as "false consciousness" and to wait for Althusser's "determination in the last instance" are likely to wait in vain. In the meantime, the messy reality of multiple identities will continue to be the experience out of which social relations are conducted.
(James Scott, 1985, p. 43)

Scott's work has moved from a critique of the Gramscian concept of hegemony and the notion of false consciousness, to emphasise the creative capacity of subordinate groups to reverse or negate dominant ideologies. A similar project is envisaged by the Subaltern Studies historians who recover the subject in the social history and resistance of subordinate groups in the colonial period. However, although both Scott and the Subaltern Studies group do look at men and women in struggles and point out areas of gender discrimination, their work does not incorporate the categories and relations of the sex/gender system into the analysis of the construction of wider political relationships. It is to feminist theory that we have to turn for a re-conceptualisation of working women.

The first fracture in the notion of a monolithic working class identity was in fact made by feminists when they highlighted the fact that the working class had two genders. The specificity of women workers lay not only in that they had special issues, e.g. maternity benefits, equal pay, sexual harassment, but also that their position in the labour market was determined by their position within the household. The double burden of wage work and domestic labour, and the ideology of domesticity implied that women entered the labour market already determined as `inferior bearers of gender'. Elson and Pearson succinctly identified three tendencies in the dialectic of capital and gender: `a tendency to intensify the existing forms of gender subordination; a tendency to decompose existing forms of gender subordination; and a tendency to recompose new forms of gender subordination' (D. Elson & R. Pearson, 1981). Women workers therefore had to struggle as workers as well as women. The lack of participation by women in trade unions was located in certain structural features: male domination in unions, the internal structure of union organisation, the dead-end nature of women's jobs, the fact that women were employed in industries which are difficult to organise, the double burden which implied that women simply did not have the time for union activities. However, in many studies on women workers, the traditional marxist model of consciousness still operates. The focus on gender has also led to the setting up of another model of `feminist consciousness', and women who do not exhibit these characteristics are seen as victims of patriarchal ideology, backward and reactionary (For a critique, see V. Beechey, 1986.)

Another approach to women workers' (lack of) consciousness, has argued that women's lack of participation in unions was due to gender socialization and the reinforcement of women's roles as mothers and wives through the ideology of domesticity. An extreme formulation of this argument, and one that is often used in developing countries, is that women's consciousness is based on a `fatalistic approach to life' (K. Purcell, 1981). Women workers were seen as more fatalistic than men in that they had little or no control over most aspects of their lives, a fact that was reinforced in the working environment as well. Further studies emphasized the `familial orientation' of women workers (A. Pollert, 1981). These concerns of women are not seen as a sign of backwardness, but as a reflection of the fact that for women `it is gender subordination which is primary, while capitalist exploitation is secondary and derivative' (D. Elson & R. Pearson, 1981, p. 89). N. Banerjee for instance points out that `the ideology of the superior male worker' does not originate in the labour market, but rather arises from the position men occupy in other areas where their dominance is guaranteed by `powerful social institutions of the family, religion and the state' (N. Banerjee, 1991: 307). However, such a formulation could result in focusing only on social institutions outside the labour market, depicting women workers as trapped within a vicious circle of `traditional patriarchy'.

Recent socialist feminist theory on women's employment has stressed the importance of looking at all areas, i.e. the labour market, household, and labour process as well as the state and other institutions as sites for the construction and reconstruction of women's subordination. Cynthia Cockburn has argued for the significance of the `socio-political and the physical dimensions as constituting the material basis for male domination'. A focus on these dimensions and on processes opens up examination of:

questions about male organisation and solidarity, the part played by institutions such as church, societies, unions and clubs for instance. And the physical opens up questions of bodily physique and its extension in technology, of buildings and clothes, space and movement. 
(C. Cockburn, 1986, p. 96)

While these formulations have been useful, in the 1980s the notion of dual identities was challenged further as the significance of race, caste and ethnic differences in structuring the labour force as well as in being a locus of consciousness was highlighted. It is no longer possible to use the category `woman' without specifying distinctions such as race, caste, ethnicity, and stage in the life cycle. In trying to accommodate these differences, there has been a tendency to stress the primacy of one identity over the other, or simply to add together gender, ethnicity and class as parallel identities based on parallel systems of domination: patriarchy, colonialism, racism and capitalism.

On the basis of research and discussions with women workers, we feel that there are serious limitations in the priority as well as the additive approachs. Further work in the area of consciousness would have to account for the pluralistic expressions of feminism and consciousness on the basis of multiple identities, rather than subsuming them under class or gender.

Feminist theorising on women's employment has to take on the challenge of multiple identities and the deconstruction of the category `woman,' articulated by black and third world feminists, as well as the analyses presented by the corpus of theory referred to as poststructuralist feminism. In pointing out the limitations of the concepts of `double and triple jeopardy' (discrimination on the basis of race, sex and class) for assuming that the relationship between various discriminations are merely additive, Deborah King argues not for the simultaneity of several oppressions but for the multiplicative relationships among them i.e that these are imbricated into each other in interlocking and mutually determining ways (Deborah King, 1988). The capacity of black women to encompass mutually contradictory positions and sets of attitudes also points to multiple and creative ways whereby women have handled these multiple identities.

Poststructuralist feminism has addressed this issue by questioning unitary, universal categories and has attempted to develop a theory of subjectivity. De Lauretis highlights what she calls the `third moment' in feminist theory as:

1) a reconceptualisation of the subject as shifting and multiply organised across variable axes of diffence; 2) a rethinking of the relationship between forms of oppression and modes of formal understanding - of doing theory; 3) an emerging redefinition of marginality as location, of identity as dis-identification; and 4) the hypothesis of self-displacement as the term of a movement that is concurrently social and subjective, internal and external, indeed political and personal.
(T. de Lauretis, 1990)

Although there are differences within poststructuralist feminist approaches, the notion of identity as the locus of multiple and variable positions which are historically grounded, the significance of the nexus 'language / subjectivity / consciousness' in the constitution of the subject, and the recognition that the subject is defined not only in relation to the polarities of masculinity and femininity, provide an important corrective to the limitations of theoretical formulations elaborated earlier. This approach also maintains a focus on agency, i.e. women and men are seen as active subjects rather than as passive victims, a perspective developed by social historians such as E.P. Thompson as well as A. Giddens.

There remain problems, however, in the formulations of some poststructuralist feminists such as Teresa de Lauretis, in the recourse to pychoanalytic approaches as explanations for the construction of gender identities. The fundamental assumptions of psychoanalytic discourse about the acquisition of gendered subjectivities and sexual difference lie in a almost inevitable model of psycho-sexual development. The difficulty of transforming such a realm, as well as its implicit universalism, is open to the well-established criticisms against such approaches.

The post structuralist feminist perspective, whatever its other shortcomings, does warn against a notion of essential women's consciouness as well as the privileging of a particular definition of consciousness as the feminist or non-feminist consciousness. The construction of ideal feminist/truly feminist concerns and issues projected as universal, without articulation of the location from which such a formulation is made, continues in contemporary women's studies. For instance, a formulation which is widely used in women's studies as well as in policy formulation today is the distinction Maxine Molyneux introduced between practical gender interests and strategic gender interests. This distinction is also based on a certain assumption of what feminist consciousness should be, i.e. that it should be oriented towards action on strategic gender issues. It has been pointed out that it is difficult to make such a distinction in relation to issues (A. Whitehead, 1990).

A struggle around wages or water taps shifts power relations, and the above-mentioned distinction leaves out the importance of the changes that occur in any context of mobilisation and struggle. Here, the concepts of agency and process are vital: the subject as actor, and the struggle itself, are key components in these changing relations.

The use of `gender' to refer to what are specifically women's issues (though differentiated by class, etc.) is confusing, since gender refers to men as well. If it is implied that such issues are also in the interests of men (as Molyneux in fact does), then it is necessary to distinguish between short-term and long-term interests. In an immediate sense, many of these issues (most of the ones included in the practical as well as strategic interests categories in Molyneux's article) ensure men's interests, and women's demands/organisation to change these will necessarily involve confrontation and conflict. The conflation of gender with women in this case completely negates the basis of women's subordination: a patriarchal system implies that men benefit from the denial of women's interests.

Caroline Moser substitutes `needs' for `interests', arguing that this separation is essential because:

of its focus on the process whereby an interest, defined as a `prioritized concern' is translated into a need, defined as the `means by which concerns are satisfied'.
(C. Moser, 1989, p. 1819, endnote)

A further distinction is developed by Kate Young (1988) between `strategic gender interests and practical gender needs. She points out that the distinction made by Molyneux differentiates theoretically deducible interests from empirically verifiable wants or needs. She however find it more useful to talk of practical needs and strategic gender interests. 

The concept of `interests' is a contested concept, yet in all these formulations the differing basis of the concept of interests and needs in distinct theoretical approaches is not examined. The notion of interests emerged historically and is located in the utilitarian view that society consists of rational, economic men seeking to maximize their satisfactions. Some feminists have rejected the use of interest theory on the grounds that:

...human beings are moved by more than interests. The reduction of all human emotions to interests and interests to the rational search for gain reduces the human community to an instrumental, arbitary, and deeply unstable alliance, one which rests on the private desires of isolated individuals.

(Irene Diamond and Nancy Hartsock, 'Beyond Interests in Politics...', American Political Science Review 75(3), 1981, p. 719, cited in A.G. Jónasdóttir, 1988, p. 45)

They argue for needs as an alternative to `interests' and `rights'. Others such as Anna Jónasdóttir feel that a clearer, historically located notion of interests which emphasises its form rather than a particular content, could be useful for feminist analysis. The concept of interests has consisted of two aspects: the form aspect which is the `demand to be among' (from the Latin base), which implies the demand for participation in and control over society's public affairs; and the content aspect which concerns the substantive values put into effect and distributed in relation to groups, needs, wishes and demands. In this sense then, the notion of `interests' only emerges in a context where there is not acceptance of authority as immutable, divinely ordained or natural.

If the focus is on the formal aspect of interests, the content aspect is kept open. Interests then could be seen as extending the conditions of choice without presuming the content of the choices offered. Jónasdóttir points out that discussions of content are better expressed by needs and desires. However, she sees the use of `needs' in political analysis as based on a view from above, i.e., it is the perspective of socially engaged experts, of administrators, who design policies for weak groups who have their needs met without `first having to overcome their weakness and fight for their own positions of influence' (A.G. Jónasdóttir, 1985, p. 48).

Three crucial questions arise in discussing the application of the concept of `interests' to women. Can one ascribe to women objective interests, irrespective of their subjective consciousness? Do all women have common interests, given class and other forms of differentiation? Do women and men have different interests? Jónasdóttir puts forward the proposition that given the pervasive mobilisation of women in history and society against their oppression, it is possible to ascribe to them objective interests. In spite of differences between women, there is agreement on a `minimal common denominator' that all women share: an interest in not `allowing themselves to be oppressed as women, or, in fighting patriarchy' (1988, p. 38). She argues that women and men do have different interests, due not to essentialist/biological differences, but to the sexual division of labour which allocates different and hierarchical positions to them.

We feel that such a notion of women's interests, which is both theoretically deduced as well as historically located, can be useful in examining women workers' actions and strategies for organising. The focus on the form aspect of `interests' does not impose any specific content on what ought to be feminist interests, which is a problem in Molyneux's formulation of strategic gender interests. Women's interests would therefore imply extending the conditions for choices to be made about the sexual division of labour, etc., without presuming what these choices have to be to qualify for inclusion into a `feminist' agenda.

We outline a series of propositions which form a grid, a shifting of lenses through which we examine and develop a further understanding of women's work and consciousness, and strategies for organising.

1. The contradictory and historically specific impact of patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism has resulted in a fragmentation and wide diversity between women's experience. Both men and women workers possess multiple identities. Identities refer to subject positions which are made available and mobilised in specific historical contexts.

2. Identities are selectively mobilised in response to economic, social, political and cultural processes. Identities are therefore constantly shifting, not only historically, but also at a given point in time. 

3. Identities involve the interplay of objective and subjective factors; class, gender, caste, race, ethnicity, for example, therefore have both a material and ideological existence.

4. Consciousness cannot be read off from objective positions. The expressions of adaptation and resistance, overt and covert are the result of complex processes (hidden and public scripts), which are constantly constructing the subjectivity of actors in multiple subject positions.

5. Women's interests are represented and reflected at all empirical and theoretical levels. Given the very nature of multiple identities, interests vary with the nature of the broader persona, or grouping, seeking change. Women's interests in this context represent the expansion of women's conditions of choice. The conditions of choice will change, as the process of asserting interests changes the subjects and the arena within which the protagonists contend.

6. The separation of private and public, of factory and home, of personal and political creates misleading dichotomies. Donna Haraway states:

If it was ever possible ideologically to characterize women's lives by the distinction of public and private domains - suggested by images of the division of working class life into factory and home, of bourgeois life into market and home, and of gender existence into personal and political realms - it is now a totally misleading ideology, even to show how both terms of these dichotomies construct each other in practice and in theory. I prefer a network ideological image, suggesting the profusion of spaces and identities and the permeability of boundaries in the personal body and in the body politic. (1991, p. 170)

7. The double burden of women's work is not necessarily an impediment to organising; it can also be an impetus.

Multiple Identities, Multiple Sites of Struggle

Women, with their multiple positionings in the family, the home, the workplace and the community, respond to the sometimes reinforcing, sometimes contradictory pressures arising from these contexts. These disparate positions are reflected in the nature, forms and categories of organising and struggle in which they engage, in the extensiveness and necessarily comprehensive nature of the terrain which they contest, and in the alliances which they create. The wide-ranging issues, foci, and organisations associated with the women's movement, for example, give a very partial picture of women's mobilizing and organising, or of the extent of women's struggles, or of the breadth of the areas in which women act. Many of the struggles are carried out in the context of, or in alliance with, other groups with related interests and demands.

The very process of conscientising, mobilizing, and organising inherent in struggle undermines the power and intended certainties of dominant discourse, and, as significantly, creates new perspectives for those engaged in confrontation. Thus, the mobilisation itself and the creation of coalitions, and the character of the organisations or categories involved, may act to modify or to transform the very sites, forms and direction of struggle, with structural, organisational, and individual effects.

While much organising is carried out independent of the state, the mobilising, organising and positioning undertaken is eminently "political", in terms of the political dimension being represented in all social practice (Laclau, 1985, p. 29); and in terms of the agendas and priorities regarding recognised and contested relations of power symbolised and/or privately discussed in homes and in gatherings among disaffected others, now gaining voice and impetus in fora of action and/or confrontation. Equally, it is political in terms of feminist theory linked to strategy, which recognises and forefronts the pervasiveness of hegemonic patriarchal ideology and practice, historically and specifically constructed. Within this ideology and practice, unequal gender-based power relations are the norm. Action which addresses these and associated structures and relations of inequality, and differential access to resources, reflects, where it does not directly confront, the structure and fabric of relations of power in society.

The varied nature of political cultures and processes, the development of a culture of civil society, and the nature of the relation between the state and civil society, necessarily affect the possibilities and forms of response to specific issues (K. Young, 1988). The contexts in which categories of women act, the bases on which they act, the issues which they address, the alliances and linkages which they create, and the contradictions and conflicts which arise, cannot be generalised. Differences among women may militate against, but do not preclude, general unity. Alliances may be created on the basis of affinity (D. Haraway, 1991; K. Young, 1988). Affinity provides the scope for multiple and temporary alliances, and for organising on numerous fronts.

The possibilities of women organising are predicated on the availability and interaction of time, space and place. Time signifies not only time available to meet and organise, but also time lacking, the constraints of time, due to multiple obligations, which may prevent women from even beginning to organise or participate in struggle, or which may galvanise women into necessarily actively engaging in struggle, in a bid to reduce the pressures of those conflicting obligations. Place is intended here as primarily locational (the site of work, and/or struggle), while space has a broader meaning, indicating the psychological and strategic creation of, or perceived need for, room to manoeuvre, to negotiate, and to challenge existing structures and controls.

Confronting Capital and the State

The constraints imposed by the double burden of domestic labour and waged labour - or, in some countries, the "triple shift" of domestic labour, waged labour, and party political activity - have had a profound impact on women organising. But with regard to this double burden, triple shift, and multiple obligations of women, we have demonstrated above, and we would posit that the very multiplicity of roles and plethora of pressures may provide both the impetus and the necessary networking and organisational structures or base for women to organise.

The pressures of multiple forms of work may reinforce each other, with the contradictory nature of these obligations ultimately precipitating action and strengthening women's demands at the various work sites (Coulson, Magas and Wainwright, 1982; P. Hunt, 1980). Conversely, workplace organising, in terms of process (conscientisation, negotiation, incorporation in struggle, re-examination and revision of demands, etc.) and outcome, can lead to re-evaluation of other areas of labour and unequal power relations such as the home, and to unequivocal demands for change.

The importance of the concatenation of women's multiple identities in women organising, in organising women, and in creating coalitions with other workers, and other categories of persons through alliances of affinity, has been demonstrated in numerous contexts. In South Africa, organising has been successfully carried out in relation to domestic service, the waged occupation most recalcitrant to the improvement of labour conditions. Here, through the growth and strength of community organisations, access to and support from the union organising body, sections of the women's movement, and the shared commitment and involvement of a large grouping of women united also by race and class, action was undertaken to organise and recognise the body of domestic workers.

Conflicting demands upon women, and the ideology buttressing the sexual division of labour, have provided the basis for women's seeming incorporation in the reserve army of labour, moving in and out of waged employment as state and capital, working at times in conjunction, and at times in contradiction to each other, have decreed. However, this movement has been contested and resisted, with historical studies demonstrating that women's waged labour did change in form and locus, but that women retained, wherever possible, their stake and involvement in, and earnings from, waged labour. Thus, for example, Rosie the Riveter may have been forced out of heavy industry, but she moved into the office, the shop, the cafe.

The very structures and institutions which define the public/private ideology, which has served to define and constrain women, are changing, and being changed by women's actions. We have seen how women in developing countries have responded to pressures created by changed economic conditions, and have initiated or joined in actions at various levels to support themselves and their kin, with family and neighbourhood ties and relationships necessarily being modified in the process. Such changes may take very different forms depending on production relations, nature of the state, etc. It has been suggested that US women are becoming less "domestic" beings: fewer women remain in conjugal families, or marry at all; neighbourhoods are dispersed; and more women are engaged in waged labour (Alice Kessler-Harris and Karen Sacks, 1987). "Family" concerns are then necessarily extended to a wider framework. Kessler-Harris and Sacks note:

As women come to perceive "family" issues as social and public ones, they move beyond the community to the national arena. ... with a corresponding shift in locus from community struggle to workplace and state-centered arenas.
(1987, p. 81)

One sees a significant move to other levels and areas of struggle, and from the privatised and localised arenas of the community and home, thus also providing the context within which to broaden the struggle, and the issues, as more persons are directly affected.

Analysts differ with regard to the effects of state intervention in domestic matters. Jónasdóttir (1988) suggests that in states with strong welfare provisions, changing state policy and increasing intervention in domestic matters increase public consciousness concerning the possibility of transformation of oppressive living conditions and domestic relations. In this case, she finds that it is the state-led revision which precipitates action among women to make further gains. Others find that that very intervention provokes confrontation with the state, as public/private boundaries shift. From dependence on individual men, women seemed to have shifted towards dependence on the state. Given the cut-backs and dismantling of the welfare state today, women are being forced to confront the state and engage in party political actions. With the present massive changes in state ideology and practice, and the move to free market economies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, women organise on new bases as they find long-held and assumed rights affecting their bodies, their work, and all aspects of their lives, swept away in waves of religious, ethnic, nationalist, and capitalist fervour.

Women have allied to question assumptions arising from the relations between waged and domestic labour, and from the assumptions underlying marital and domestic ideology, in order to assert alternative positions in relation to the community and the state. For example, in a South Korean case (Suh Myung Sun, 1985), issues regarding labour legislation, domestic ideology, valuation of domestic labour, economic provisions for married women, and the rights of the individual were raised and queried in the context of an injury compensation case, fought to the highest level through the support of a coalition of women's organisations. Perhaps the most striking example of women's querying of and resistance to a hierarchical and oppressive sexual division of labour was the national action taken in Iceland, with the Women's Strike of October 24, 1975 (S. James, 1985; W. Hardadottir, 1985).

The building of alliances in relation to women's mobilising around issues of labour is and has been of the utmost importance, although this is an area where the establishment of allies has long been problematic. Historically, there have often been uneasy, when not openly conflictual, relations between women and men within the formal labour force, and the history of first world trade unionism has not often exemplified worker solidarity in relation to gender. Coalitions which have been created have sometimes worked around formal union structures, rather than through them, and certainly even at present, women workers may find more immediate (and useful) support through women's organisations, the church, ethnic groups, civil rights groups, etc., than through the labour structures, although this reflects also present limitations set on union powers, as in free trade zones.

Women sometimes tend to straddle opposing camps in labour relations, and indeed the growth of women workers' organisations, in-house unions as a preferred organising strategy, and "active non-participation" in unions reflects these considerations. However, the creation of coalitions is an important and effective strategy for women workers; and of course certain benefits extend throughout the coalition. These may not relate directly to the workers or to the labour process, but rather to the changed consciousness brought from the shared perspectives of the coalition, and the effects of struggle.

Coalescing Strategies

The actions elaborated above have led women workers into direct confrontation with capital, patriarchy, and the state. All the examples discussed demonstrate the importance of coalescing strategies. By coalescing strategies, we mean the formulation of demands which overcome divisions such as factory and household, wage work and domestic labour, private and public.

The practical demonstration of coalescing strategies has occurred in situations of economic, social and political crisis. However, even in `normal' situations it should be possible to develop organisational strategies which go beyond defensive reactions, and address multiple identities and their multiple linkages. For instance, in relation to women workers in industry, the following demands could break through the constructed divisions of capitalist society, as well as the compartmentalisation of organisational action:

a demand to include domestic labour in minimum wage determination would link together strategically household and factory, as well as the interests of women and men workers;

a demand to redefine industry so that it would include the whole chain of subcontracting in a particular industry, would therefore make it possible to extend labour legislation to a wide range of casual work, including home-based work and related work of rural women; and

a demand for compensation in relation to divorce, injury, etc., incorporating proper recognition and valuation of domestic labour. This would link labour law with family law, ensure greater financial, social and possibly physical security for women, and be more effective than the notoriously elusive equal pay.

Such demands are practical and therefore could be the basis for discussions around these issues in unions, women's centres, and other organisations. We need to move from criticism of the limitations of dichotomies in theory, towards confronting and challenging the divisions of practice, drawing on the praxis of struggle and resistance of working women as they have confronted state, capital and patriarchy.


Adesina, Jimi. 1990. `The Construction of Social Communities in Work: The Case of a Nigerian Factory', Capital and Class No. 40, Spring, pp. 115-147.

Annavajhula, J.C.B. 1988. `Subcontracting in Electronics: A Case Study of Keltron', Economic and Political Weekly, Aug. 27, pp. M103-117.

Banerjee, Nirmala. 1991. "Conclusion", in Nirmala Banerjee (ed.), Indian Women in a Changing Industrial Scenario, Indo-Dutch Studies on Development Alternatives 5, Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp. 299-311.

Beechey, Veronica. 1986. `Studies of Women's Employment', in Feminist Review (ed.), Waged Work: A Reader, Virago Press Ltd., London, pp. 130-159. First published in Feminist Review No. 15, 1983.

Berger, Iris. 1990. `Gender, Race, and Political Empowerment: South African Canning Workers, 1940-1960', Gender & Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, Sept., pp. 398-420.

Burawoy, Michael. 1985. The Politics of Production, Verso, London.

Chhachhi, Amrita. 1983. `The Case of India' in Wendy Chapkis and Cynthia Enloe (eds.), Of Common Cloth: Women in the Global Textile Industry, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, pp. 39-45.

Cockburn, Cynthia. 1986. `The Material of Male Power', in Feminist Review (ed.), Waged Work: A Reader, Virago Press Ltd., London, pp. 93-113. First published in Feminist Review No. 9, 1981.

Coulson, Margaret, Branka Magas and Hilary Wainwright. 1982. `"The Housewife and her Labour under Capitalism" - a Critique', in Ellen Malos (ed.), The Politics of Housework, Allison & Busby, London, pp. 7-43.

de Lauretis, Teresa. 1990. `Eccentric Subjects: Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness', Feminist Studies 16, No. 1, Spring, pp. 115-150.

Dennis, Carolyne. 1984. `Capitalist Development and Women's Work: A Nigerian Case Study', Review of African Political Economy No. 27/28, February, pp. 109-119.

di Domenico, C. 1983. `Male and Female Factory Workers in Ibadan', in Christine Oppong (ed.), Female and Male in West Africa, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., pp. 256-265.

Elson, Diane and Ruth Pearson. 1981. `The Subordination of Women and the Internationalisation of Factory Production' in K. Young, C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh (eds.), Of Marriage and the Market, CSE Books, London, pp. 144-166.

Frank, Andre Gunder and Marta Fuentes. 1990. `Civil Democracy: Social Movements in Recent World History', in Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, A.G. Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein (eds.), Transforming the Revolution: Social Movements and the World-System, Monthly Review Press, New York, pp. 139-180.

Gaitskell, Deborah, Judy Kimble, Moira Maconachie and Elaine Unterhalter. 1984. `Class, Race and Gender: Domestic Workers in South Africa', Review of African Political Economy No. 27/28, pp. 86-108.

Genovese, Eugene. 1974. Roll Jordan Roll, New York.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1985. Selections from Cultural Writings. Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, Free Association Books, London.

Hardadottir, Wilborg. 1985. Woman and Development Seminar, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Hunt, P. 1980. Gender and Class Consciousness, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London.

James, Selma. 1985. `The Global Kitchen'. Housewives in Dialogue, London (mimeo).

Jónasdóttir, Anna G. 1988. `On the Concept of Interest, Women's Interests, and the Limitations of Interest Theory', in Kathleen B. Jones and Anna G. Jónasdóttir, The Political Interests of Gender: Developing Theory and Research with a Feminist Face, Sage Publications, London, pp. 33-65.

Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1988. 'Bargaining with Patriarchy', Gender and Society, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 274-290.

Kessler-Harris, Alice and Karen B. Sacks. 1987. `The Demise of Domesticity in America' in Lourdes Benería and Catharine R. Stimpson (eds.), Women, Households, and the Economy, Rutgers University Press, pp. 65-84.

King, Deborah K. 1988. `Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology', Signs, vol. 14, No. 11, pp. 42-72.

Laclau, Ernesto. 1985. `New Social Movements and the Plurality of the Social', in David Slater (ed.), New Social Movements and the State in Latin America, CEDLA, Amsterdam.

Ladd-Taylor, Molly. 1985. `Women Workers and the Yale Strike', Feminist Studies 11, No. 3, Fall, pp. 465-489.

Lamphere, Louise. 1985. `Bringing the Family to Work: Women's Culture on the Shop Floor', Feminist Studies 11, No. 3, Fall, pp. 519-540.

Mies, Maria. 1988. `Capitalist Development and Subsistence Production: Rural Women in India' in M. Mies, V. Bennholdt-Thomsen, & C. von Werlhof, Women: The Last Colony. Zed Books Ltd., London, pp. 27-50.

Mitter, Swasti. 1986. Common Fate, Common Bond: Women in the Global Economy, Pluto Press, London.

Molyneux, Maxine. 1985. `Mobilization without Emancipation? Women's Interests, the State, and Revolution in Nicaragua', Feminist Studies 11, No. 2, Summer, pp. 227-253.

Moser, Caroline O.N. 1989. `Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs', World Development, Vol. 17, No. 11, November, pp. 1799-1825.

Nash, June. 1990. `Latin American Women in the World Capitalist Crisis', Gender and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, September, pp. 338-353.

Nicholson, Linda J. 1990. Feminism/Postmodernism, Routledge, New York.

Phillips, Anne and Barbara Taylor. 1986. `Sex and Skill', in Feminist Review (ed.), Waged Work: A Reader, Virago Press Ltd., London, pp. 54-66. First published in Feminist Review No. 6, 1980.

Pittin, Renee. 1984. `Gender and Class in a Nigerian Industrial Setting', Review of African Political Economy No. 31, pp. 71-81.

Pittin, Renee. 1986. `Carrying the Double Burden: A Case Study of Women Factory Workers in Nigeria'. Paper presented at the XI World Congress of Sociology, New Delhi, August.

Pollert, Anna. 1981. Girls, Wives, Factory Lives. The Macmillan Press Ltd., London.

Purcell, Kate. 1981. `Female Manual Workers, Fatalism and the Reinforcement of Inequalities'. Paper presented to the British Sociological Association Annual Conference, Aberystwyth (mimeo).

Redclift, Nanneke and Enzo Mingione. 1985. Beyond Employment: Household, Gender and Subsistence, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford.

Safa, Helen I. 1990. `Women's Social Movements in Latin America', Gender and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, Sept., pp. 354-369.

Scott, James C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Spivak, Gayatri C. and Ranajit Guha (eds.). 1988. Selected Subaltern Studies, Oxford University Press.

Suh Myung Sun. 1985. `State and Women's Subordination: The Case of Korea since 1960'. MA Research Paper, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Thompson, E.P. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth.

Walby, Sylvia. 1990. `Woman, Citizen, Nation'. Paper presented to the Conference of the European Network for Women's Studies, The Hague, November (mimeo).

Weedon, Chris. 1987. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford.

Whitehead, Anne. 1990. Women and Development Seminar, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Young, Kate. 1988. `Reflections on Meeting Women's Needs'. Introduction to Kate Young (ed.), Women and Economic Development: Local, REgional and National Planning Strategies, Berg/Unesco, Oxford, pp. 1-30.

Zavella, Patricia. 1985. `"Abnormal Intimacy": The Varying Networks of Chicana Cannery Workers', Feminist Studies 11, No. 3, Fall, pp. 541-557.

Back to the top