Care Work in Coloniality and Modernity

Examining The Gender Inequalities Of Care Work Through The Lens Of Coloniality And Modernity

Examining the Gender Inequalities of Care Work through the Lens of Coloniality and Modernity

Within the discourse of economic inequality, there has always been a sidelining of the extent to which the entire conversation - particularly among scholars and policymakers - is gendered. As authors like Ideland (2018) have demonstrated in their research work, a big proportion of the care work across the world is often relegated to women and girls. However, even as this relegation occurs, it is notable that women tend to be paid less than male counterparts for the same amount of work. This means that women have to work overtime to meet the demands of their professional and personal lives. Thus, as several authors have intimated in their work, care work often perpetuates the very inequities which women face in other facets of their lives.

The assertions made above form the concern of The OXFAM briefing paper developed in January 2020. According to this developmental organization, in the year 2019, only 2513 people had more wealth than 4.6 billion (Oxfam, 2020). While the authors of the report acknowledge that this great divide is mainly based on a flawed system, they also identify the fact that it is also sexist. More specifically, the report makes the assertion that this system of inequality typically the values the wealth of male members of society, in the process ignoring or neglecting to take into account the billions of essential work that women typically put in. As per the findings of the report, both unpaid and underpaid is primarily done by women and girls all around the world. This work typically consists of activities like cooking, cleaning, fetching water, and fetching water. One of the reasons these activities remain unpaid and underpaid is because they are gendered (Oxfam, 2020). In other words, in light of the fact that they are performed mostly by women and girls, they are not as valued as when men carry them out. In this way, therefore, the heavy and unequal responsibility of care work results in a situation where care work actually acts to perpetuate both gender and economic inequalities. In the following sections, there shall be a critical assessment of the extent to which the argument made by OXFAM in their briefing paper can be said to be a reflection of the manner in which economic inequality in the world continues to be gendered. In considering the findings made by OXFAM, the important thing will be to consider how the subject intersects with modernity and coloniality (Oxfam, 2020). Thus, this paper will be organized in three key ways. First, it will consider the concepts of modernity and coloniality. Secondly, it will conduct an examination and analysis of the findings made by the OXFAM briefing report. Finally, there will be a juxtaposition of coloniality and modernity to understand the manner in which these two concepts have a bearing on how care work by girls and women is envisioned in the world today.

Key Aspects of Modernity

According to Annus (2018) there is little consensus as to when exactly modernity happened. Scholars' inability to pinpoint exactly when modernity happened is important because this impossibility then renders modernity as a process that does not necessarily have a beginning and end. Even so, this author - just like Adams et al. (2018) and Blanco et al. (2019) -notes that modernity has always been associated with sociological individuation; scientific explanation and rationalization; a decline in the use of religion or spirituality to explain phenomena; the emergence and mass embrace of bureaucracy; an increase in the influence of nation-states; and a noted acceleration in the manner in which financial exchanges and communication would happen.

Even though there is disparate consensus as to when modernity occurred, histories of Western Europe suggest that a modern era can be said to have happened when colonial invasion came to an end. This, therefore, means that modernity came to a high point during the 18th and 19th centuries (Maldonado-Torres, 2016). According to other authors, modernity was exemplified by the changes brought about by the two world wars and the resistance that manifested itself through the postmodernist movement (Cupples, 2018). Nevertheless, to understand modernity, it could be beneficial to consider it as the movement where people made a break or sought to break with the past and introduce novelty into all - or most - facets of society.

In his work, Paradies (2020) argues that, despite the many contestations that exist with respect to the concept of modernity, there are certain aspects that can be said to be characteristics of modernity. As per this author, modernity typically consisted of the rise of the idea of the nation state; the growth of tolerant views with respect to people who did not ascribe to the dominant social and religious views; the increase in the extent of industrialization; the rise of the concept of mercantilism and capitalism; the colonization of regions that were not Western; an increase in the levels of mass literacy; the increase of the influence and penetration of mass media; and a particularly philosophical distrust of tradition.

Therefore, when it comes to the gender question, it can be worth considering how much of an influence modernity was. The work by Chakravarty (2016) is instructive when it comes to considering the relationship between these two aspects. In her work, Chakravarty (2016) notes that modernity came with a reconsideration of the place of girls and women in so far as gender was concerned. Thus, during modernity, girls and women found that they had more room to contest any ideas of morality in a manner that they would not have been able to in previous times. Thus, generally, when it came to the gender question, the general view is that modernity brought progress to women.

Even so, as the work by Tucker (2018) demonstrates, this question of gender vis-à-vis modernity has to be conceptualized within the idea of a modernity that is not constant. According to this author, even during the era of modernity, women and girls still found that they could not benefit from the same rights that other men and women wanted. Thus, according to him, any claims which one makes as to gender equality in the modernist period may run into the risk of engendering a certain complacency with respect to how far societies have progressed in their treatment of women and men.

Modernity/ Coloniality

One could conceive coloniality as being that quality where a person or an institution has been subjected to colonialism. On his part, Lugones (2016) notes that coloniality could be said to refer to those structures of power, control, and - in some cases - hegemony which not only emerged during the modernist era, but also persisted throughout the colonial period well into the period where the conquest of Americas happened. As such, then, one could argue that coloniality not only speaks to the aspect of being colonized, but also to the superstructure of the colonial moment.

In his work, Wijesinghe (2020) notes that modernity/coloniality is a concept which is attributed to Anibal Quijano and Walter Mignolo. According to this author, this concept makes reference to the manner in which these two concepts are, in fact, inseparable. These two authors made the argument that one could not distinguish modernity from coloniality for two main reasons. The first reason is with respect to temporality. According to Clevenger (2017), the modernist era occurred at the same time as the colonial period. In this respect, the two eras are indistinguishable.

The second reason is with respect to ideas of contemporaneity. According to Clevenger (2017), the effects of both modernity and coloniality were evident in how the people who were subject to both concepts negotiated and navigated their lives. It is worth noting that, usually, it is people who are post-colonialists and decolonialists who seek to draw their attention to the relationship which exists between colonialism and the dominant narrative of modernity. As per this group of scholars, much of the world’s history has come to be understood through these two concepts. As such, both concepts can be used as epistemological frames to inquire into the extent to which modernity cannot be distinguished from the European colonial project. Thus, when it comes to a consideration of modernity/coloniality vis-à-vis gender, it is possible to argue that the intersection of these two concepts led to a situation where there was an engendering of certain ideas about gender, particularly in the global south. As authors like Clevenger (2017) have noted, in the colonized geographical regions, the imposition of foreign cultures in the colonized localities to a situation where the moralities of the colonial powers intersected with indigenous patriarchies to create various forms of subjugation for both women and girls. As such, it is possible to argue that, ultimately, coloniality/modernity came with certain norms which entrenched male hegemony. This state of affairs finally led to the current situation where the work which women and girls conduct is not considered to be important.

Modernity/Coloniality vis-à-vis Care Work in the Modern Context

As was noted in the introductory sections, the main contribution of the OXFAM briefing report to the discourse on economic inequality is that the gender question has not been considered adequately. The report's findings demonstrate that, at the top of the global economy, there is a small elite that is unimaginably rich. However, even though the wealth of this small elite continues to grow in unimaginable ways, there is a cohort of struggling people at the bottom. More specifically, women and girls are likely to be at the bottom of this pyramid (Oxfam, 2020). Most of the women and girls who have been relegated to the bottom of the pyramid either come from poverty or from places which can be considered to be marginalized. According to the report, women and girls put in 12.5 billion hours every day without remuneration. Even as they do this, what is not considered is the fact that the work these women put in is often essential and foundational to the day-to-day operation of people across the world (De Los Ríos, and Seltzer, 2017)

The OXFAM briefing report also notes that the kind of extreme wealth which is found in the world today is based on sexism. Indeed, as the report notes, the entire global economic system was built by rich and powerful men who, even in the present, continue not only to make the rules, but also to reap the majority of the benefits that come out of this kind of power control. From the report, it is evident that, across the world, men own 50% more wealth than is owned by women. Furthermore, the findings of the report show that men predominate when it comes to positions of both political and economic power (Oxfam, 2020). Only 18% of ministers and parliamentarians in the world are women. Finally, where the data is available, women occupy only an estimated 34% of the managerial positions which are available. In the report, there is a centering of the importance of female care workers. The findings of the report demonstrate that, currently, the world is facing a care crisis as a result of the impacts of an ageing population, various cuts with respect to public services, and a general decrease in the sustainability of social protection systems, there is now an increasing burden on female care workers. Therefore, to address this seemingly bleak state of affairs, organisations like OXFAM are making certain recommendation both to governments and other stakeholders (Acosta, 2018).

First, there has been a call for governments to invest in national care systems so as to be able to address the disproportionate responsibility for care work conducted by both women and girls.

Secondly, there is a spirited call to have governments and other stakeholders pay attention to strategies which will end extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

According to the OXFAM briefing report, extreme wealth is often a sign of an economic system which is failing. Thirdly, the briefing report calls for the creation and enactment of legislation which will protect the rights of all carers while also securing the living wages of all paid care workers. As per the report, one of the ways through which governments will be able to effect this recommendation is through the ratification of the ILO convention. In ratifying this convention, there will be a framework which not only offers protection to domestic workers, but also ensures that all people who offer care work are able to be paid a living wage as other strategies are taken in order to facilitate the elimination of the gender gap (Mitchell et al., 2020).

When the insights and recommendations of the OXFAM briefing report are juxtaposed with the ideas of modernity/coloniality, some insights can be made. First, it will be noted that one of the most foundational ideas about the two concepts is that they are both undergirded by Western hegemony (Just, 2017). Thus, in the same way that one is unable to detach modernity from coloniality, then the current situation when it comes to women and care work cannot be separated from modernity/coloniality. This is particularly because the very structures which allow girls and women to be relegated to the bottom level of the global economic order are the ones which propped up the economic system which made modernity/coloniality possible. Nevertheless, in the report, it is important to note that there is an underlying assumption that the situation of economic equality is not propped up by questions about class. Indeed, even in the colonial and post-colonial discourse, there is room for a consideration of the place of how the disproportionate distribution of resources had a real effect on where people would be located on the socio-economic ladder (Lee, 2020). To this extent, one of the critiques that one can level against the OXFAM briefing report is the fact that it does not properly take into account the fact that modernity/coloniality created a system of structures where most of the girls and women who could do care work are those who belonged to the lower classes. Thus, the result of not incorporating this class aspect in its entirety is that it neglects to consider the manner in which the wealth created by both coloniality and modernity has come to be concentrated in a few hands.

Conclusion

Overall, then, one could argue that the main point by the OXFAM briefing report is that in a global system of economic inequality, it is mostly the girls and women who are facing the most harm. Thus, according to the report, the onus falls on governmental agencies and other stakeholders to put in place the measures that will ensure that this demographic is well-tended to. However, even though the report makes insightful recommendations, this emerging discourse must include the kind of class analysis and interpretation that considers the fact that, due to modernity and coloniality, the class structures that were development at the inception of modernity and coloniality persist to this very day. Any discourse that emphasizes the plight of girls and women in care work has to take this fact into consideration.

References

Acosta, A., 2018. Unsettling Coloniality: Readings and Interrogations. Journal of Commonwealth and Postcolonial Studies Vol, 6(1).

Adams, G., Estrada-Villalta, S. and Ordóñez, L.H.G., 2018. The modernity/coloniality of being: Hegemonic psychology as intercultural relations. International Journal of intercultural relations, 62, pp.13-22.

Annus, E. ed., 2018. Coloniality, Nationality, Modernity: A Postcolonial View on Baltic Cultures under Soviet Rule. Routledge.

Blanco, R. and Delgado, A.C.T., 2019. Problematising the Ultimate Other of Modernity: the Crystallisation of Coloniality in International Politics. Contexto Internacional, 41(3), pp.599-619.

Chakravarty, R., 2016. Novelist Tagore: Gender and Modernity in Selected Texts. Routledge.

Clevenger, S.M., 2017. Sport history, modernity and the logic of coloniality: A case for decoloniality. Rethinking history, 21(4), pp.586-605.

Cupples, J., 2018. Introduction: Coloniality resurgent, coloniality interrupted. In Unsettling Eurocentrism in the Westernized University (pp. 1-22). Routledge.

De Los Ríos, C.V. and Seltzer, K., 2017. Translanguaging, coloniality, and English classrooms: An exploration of two bicoastal urban classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 52(1), pp.55-76.

Ideland, M., 2018. Science, coloniality, and “the great rationality divide”. Science & Education, 27(7-8), pp.783-803.

Just, D., 2017. The Invention of Work in Modernity: Hegel, Marx, and Weber. Journal of Historical Sociology, 30(2), pp.435-456.