A Feminist Urban Theory for Our Time. Группа авторов

the early 1970s when it was ignited by the path-breaking debates between feminist political economists. The early work of Boserup (1970) in this period, which related to Southern cities, based on a classification of different types of cities according to the presences and absences of men and women, fell between the cracks. While development feminists took up Boserup’s work in relation to women’s various modes of integration into development, urban feminists remained largely unaware of it, their focus being on Northern cities and the above-mentioned debates. Northern-based scholars began to amalgamate empirical studies of the gendered division of labour within households with feminist Marxist political economy accounts of urbanization to address the role of social reproduction in capitalism. Building on this work, urban feminists initiated a field of study of the sites and processes of social reproduction in urban place-making and urbanization, and of the ways in which changes in spatialities and processes of social reproduction and production affect and transform the urban. The first review of this work by urban feminists came as early as 1974 (Hapgood and Getzels 1974), followed shortly by others (Hayden and Wright 1976; Wekerle 1980) (see Peake 2020 for further elaboration).

      2 2 Although they have not stopped in their efforts to problematize and transform this intellectual erasure, feminist scholars’ patience with the tenacity of this lack of engaging with questions of social reproduction has been wearing thin over several decades and is resulting, amongst other responses, with a refusal to engage with masculinist urban theory (see Katz 2006; Derickson 2018).

      3 3 Katz’s most recent definition of social reproduction falls squarely in the political economy tradition, as ‘the daily and long-term reproduction of the means of production, the labor power to make them work, and the social relations that hold them in place’ (Norton and Katz, 2017, p. 1).

      4 4 The following are some of those whose contributions defined this field for a whole generation of scholars: Pat Armstrong, Hugh Armstrong, Veronica Beechey, Patricia Connelly, Maria Rosa Dalla Costa, Diane Elson, Silvia Federici, Bonnie Fox, Selma James, Martha Gimenez, Meg Luxton, Martha MacDonald, Maureen Mackintosh, Angela Miles, Maxine Molyneux, Ruth Pearson, Wally Seccombe, Lise Vogel, and Annie Whitehead.

      5 5 Although feminist scholars did not introduce the term ‘social reproduction’ (it was first introduced in the 18th century), socialist feminists were responsible for developing a fully-fledged account of it (for a genealogy of the term, see Caffentzis 2002).

      6 6 Numerous studies have shown that although some men are engaging more in domestic work, this is uneven and far from reaching equality of participation (Altintas and Sullivan 2016; Office for National Statistics 2016; Bourantani 2017; Moyser and Burlock 2018; Woodman and Cook 2019).

      7 7 We include fields essential for social reproduction that cross the waged/unwaged work divide, such as those of childcare, domestic work, education, and healthcare (see also Pearson and Elson 2015).

      8 8 We agree with other critical urban scholars who argue that the lack of any global agreement on a definition of the urban, the uneven pace and form of urbanization, and the incompatability of national data sets raises serious questions about the nature of the ‘global’ urban (see Brenner and Schmid 2014).

      9 9 Space prevents us from even a brief overview of this literature, but see, for example, Castells (1983) on the city as a spatial unit of collective consumption, and feminist critiques of why the provision of goods and services by the state fall short of a comprehensive understanding of social reproduction.

      10 10 The global geoeconomic transformations triggered by the financial crash have also facilitated the global rise of the right – with its associated ideologies of fascism, nationalism, populism, xenophobia, and militarism. The associated reassertion of patriarchy and misogyny, in fixing the unstable subject of woman, is also accelerating the trend to increase the burdens on women to carry the costs of social reproduction.

      11 11 See, for example, Piketty 2015; UN-Habitat 2016; Vidal, Tjaden, and Laczko 2018.

      12 12 Scholars have documented the feminization of migration through the transnational migration of women for care and domestic labour and the resultant creation of global care chains (Huang et al. 2012; Parrenas 2012; Yeates 2012). Global care chains are central to contemporary processes of social reproduction both in responding to crises in social reproduction in contexts of increasing education levels and professional employment amongst women and the withdrawal of state support for activities of social reproduction, as well as in enabling migrant women from low income countries to support the social reproduction of their families (Yeoh and Huang 2010).

      13 13 Contemporary migration also demonstrates the increasing entanglement of paid and unpaid reproductive labour (Pearson and Elson 2015, p. 10) as a key feature of social reproduction under the conditions of neoliberal capitalism and the financialization of labour (Federici 2018; Martin 2002).

      References

      1 Ali, F. and Nagar, R. (2003). Collaboration across borders: Moving beyond positionality. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 24 (3): 356–372.

      2 Altintas, E. and Sullivan, O. (2016). Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national gender convergence in housework. Demographic Research 35 (16): 455–470.

      3 Andrucki, M., Henry, C., McKeithen, W. et al. (2018). Beyond binaries and boundaries in ‘social reproduction’. Environment and Planning D: Space and Society. www.societyandspace.org/forums/beyond-binaries-and-boundaries-in-social-reproduction (accessed 1 April 2020).

      4 Bakker, I. (2007). Social reproduction and the constitution of a gendered political economy. New Political Economy 12 (4): 541–556.

      5 Beechey, V. (1977). Some notes on female wage labour in capitalist production. Capital and Class 1 (3): 45–66.

      6 Benston, M. (1969). The political economy of women’s liberation. Monthly Review 21 (4): 31–43.

      7 Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

      8 Bhattacharya, T. (2017). Introduction: Mapping social reproduction theory. In: Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression (ed. T. Bhattacharya), 1–20. London: Pluto Press.

      9 Boserup, E. (1970). Woman’s Role in Economic Development. London: George Allen & Unwin.

      10 Bourantani, E. (2017). Queering social reproduction: UK male primary carers reconfiguring care and work. Society and Space Open Site (31 October). https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/queering-social-reproduction-uk-male-primary-carers-reconfiguring-care-and-work (accessed 8 April 2020).

      11 Brenner, N. (2014). Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin: Jovis.

      12 Brenner, N. and Schmid, C. (2014). The ‘urban age’ in question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (3): 731–755.

      13 Briggs, L. (2017). How All Politics Became Reproductive Politics: From Welfare Reform to Foreclosure to Trump. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

      14 Bryan, D. and Rafferty, M. (2014). Financial derivatives as social policy beyond crisis. Sociology 48 (5): 887–903.

      15 Buckley, M. and Strauss, K. (2016). With, against and beyond Lefebvre: Planetary urbanization and epistemic plurality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (4): 617–636.

      16 Burnett, P. (1973). Social change, the status of women and models of city form and development. Antipode 5 (3): 57–62.

      17 Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. London: Routldege.

      18 Butler, J. (2012). Precarious life, vulnerability, and the ethics of cohabitation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 26 (2): 134–151.

      19 Byrd, J.A., Goldstein, A., Melamed, J. et al. (2018). Predatory value: Economies of dispossession and disturbed relationalities. Social Text 36 (2 [135]): 1–18.

      20 Caffentzis,