Collective Spaces

Ground_plan_of_the_edifice_of_an_association

I would like to use some infor­mal notes to cre­ate a con­nec­tion between the neces­si­ty to rethink and clar­i­fy the con­cept of social repro­duc­tion, and the need to cre­ate col­lec­tive spaces in our cities.

It is nec­es­sary to think about these spaces as tru­ly pub­lic and rela­tion­al, putting togeth­er the­o­ries and prac­tices of resis­tance exper­i­ment­ed with dur­ing the cri­sis.

1. What do we mean by “social reproduction”? The reproduction of individuals is social in the sense of being controlled or manipulated, in a constant shift between public and private.

My inten­tion is to talk about social repro­duc­tion in the con­text of a spe­cif­ic social envi­ron­ment. Social repro­duc­tion ver­sus the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als, pub­lic ver­sus pri­vate, manip­u­lat­ed and reg­u­lat­ed ver­sus free and autonomous, frus­tra­tion and soli­tude ver­sus joy­ous coop­er­a­tion.

In Europe the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als is sub­ject to a con­tin­u­ous fluc­tu­a­tion between “social” and “pri­vate.”1 The social is the space of direct manip­u­la­tion, orga­nized by laws, pub­lic expen­di­tures, cus­toms, and moral rules that crush the individual’s abil­i­ty to desire. The pri­vate is coarse­ly ide­al­ized as the space of free­dom, but in most cas­es it reveals itself as the domin­ion of neglect, mis­ery, frus­tra­tion, pow­er­less­ness, and lone­li­ness.

The social forms of the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als do not coin­cide only with wel­fare (which, dur­ing Fordism func­tioned as a con­trol mech­a­nism for the repro­duc­tion of the labor force, while today it’s only a shad­ow of an expense on the pub­lic bud­get, reduced to insignif­i­cance). It is also the entire­ty of the ways in which a spe­cif­ic soci­ety views the rela­tion­ship between sex­es, as well as the devel­op­ment, growth, and for­ma­tion of indi­vid­u­als.

Inside the nar­ra­tive pro­posed by neolib­er­al­ism, indi­vid­u­als are por­trayed as free of com­mit­ments and inter­de­pen­den­cies, free to choose their own life, able to dis­cov­er by them­selves a repro­duc­tive bal­ance, even if lim­it­ed by the con­straints of rigid norms.

Of course all of this pro­duces a process of retreat into the pri­vate sphere, with the estab­lish­ment of new hier­ar­chies between gen­ders, but also between cit­i­zens and migrants, beside the usu­al class divi­sions.

Accord­ing to my point of view, a fem­i­nist point of view, the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als is entire­ly social, because it is always reg­u­lat­ed and manip­u­lat­ed by the soci­ety and the state, even if it doesn’t always appear to be so. This con­trol and manip­u­la­tion is exert­ed upon the work that has his­tor­i­cal­ly been assigned to women, paid labor in the case of ser­vice work or free in the case of the “work of love.”2

In this moment of cri­sis that we are expe­ri­enc­ing in Europe, the actu­al mod­el of social repro­duc­tion is no longer sus­tain­able and needs the push of strong and cre­ative forms of exper­i­men­ta­tion, even when they might seem prob­lem­at­ic.

If we start from re-defin­ing repro­duc­tion as “entire­ly social” and per­formed by every­body, then it is pos­si­ble to imag­ine new forms of col­lab­o­ra­tion, inter­con­nec­tions between the free­dom of choice and the com­fort of com­mon­al­i­ty, and projects of resis­tance on the issue of wel­fare and social activ­i­ty, at least regard­ing the sphere of mate­r­i­al repro­duc­tion.

2. Biological reproduction is social reproduction

The repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als can be described in var­i­ous ways: bio­log­i­cal, mate­r­i­al, emo­tion­al, cul­tur­al, rela­tion­al. Obvi­ous­ly these var­i­ous char­ac­ter­is­tics are pro­duced by a soci­ety that is his­tor­i­cal­ly deter­mined and in turn defined by them.

The pri­ma­ry trait, the one that has to do with the repro­duc­tion of the species, with the mate­r­i­al actions of hav­ing chil­dren, with the phys­i­cal repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als – because it is mere­ly root­ed in biol­o­gy, seems to be dis­so­ci­at­ed from the “social” and remain a pri­vate affair, a choice found­ed on love and free­dom, more than ever today, when women in many coun­tries have gained access to con­tra­cep­tive and abortive choic­es.

Nonethe­less, these choic­es are exact­ly what deter­mines the social char­ac­ter of bio­log­i­cal repro­duc­tion, which has been made “free” by laws that are some­times lim­it­ing, some­times bad­ly enforced, and which often con­tain many restric­tive claus­es. The choic­es that are ascribed to the will of indi­vid­u­als are indeed con­di­tioned more than what we think. Let’s take into con­sid­er­a­tion, for instance, the his­to­ry of women’s strug­gles dur­ing the sec­ond half of the 1900s.

Even though incen­tives used to affect demo­graph­ic changes in coun­tries with a strong con­ser­v­a­tive regime, keen on pro­tect­ing the “race” (such as Italy and Ger­many but also France dur­ing the 1930s), have very lit­tle if any impact at all, there are more sub­tle restric­tions in sit­u­a­tions where the free­dom of choice of women might seem an accom­plished fact: laws on abor­tion can be dis­re­gard­ed by doc­tors and health­care pro­fes­sion­als on the basis of con­sci­en­tious objec­tion, abor­tion clin­ics might close, cul­tur­al pres­sures from reli­gious insti­tu­tions in favor of a gener­ic defense of life can cre­ate obsta­cles to informed choic­es, work and life con­di­tions can be unfa­vor­able to repro­duc­tive choic­es, and a gen­er­al reduc­tion in pub­lic expen­di­tures and in social ser­vices can strong­ly affect the deci­sion to have chil­dren. It is not a coin­ci­dence that the recog­ni­tion of non-tra­di­tion­al fam­i­lies, from fam­i­lies recre­at­ed after a divorce to homo­sex­u­al fam­i­lies, is more and more estab­lished and wide­spread. These fam­i­lies guar­an­tee a mod­el for bio-social repro­duc­tion that is mod­ern but still inside the frame of the rec­og­nized and respect­ed par­a­digm of the “fam­i­ly,” so that bio­log­i­cal and non-bio­log­i­cal repro­duc­tion can still be reg­u­lat­ed by a set of social­ly deter­mined norms.

Abortive and con­tra­cep­tive prac­tices, viewed as able to guar­an­tee free­dom to the female body, free­dom regard­ing life choic­es as well as the times and modes of repro­duc­tion are, on the con­trary, con­trolled and often sub­ject­ed to strong legit­i­ma­cy chal­lenges.

The imple­men­ta­tion of prac­tices of con­trol upon the sex­u­al­i­ty of women, which has been wide­spread through his­to­ry, has recent­ly caused strong clash­es at the inter­na­tion­al lev­el and often led to judi­cial sen­tences con­demn­ing the “sex­u­al free­dom” of women in the case of rape and vio­lence.3

This is how bio­log­i­cal repro­duc­tion is con­di­tioned and ends depend­ing on social struc­tures. It is very dif­fi­cult then to sep­a­rate it from what we usu­al­ly call social repro­duc­tion and from the pol­i­tics and pow­er of the rul­ing class­es.

3. The material aspect of reproduction, the historically unpaid work of women, which had been partially socialized by the Fordist welfare system, is again privatized and retreats into the realm of the single household during the crises.

Cap­i­tal­ism has always treat­ed the work of care as labor. In fact, cap­i­tal­ists have always com­pen­sat­ed it (bonnes, house­maids, wet nurs­es, but­lers, ser­vants, etc.), even while under­pay­ing that labor and mak­ing it struc­tur­al by insert­ing it in rela­tion­ships of depen­den­cy, attach­ment, and belong­ing.4

Con­sid­ered nat­ur­al inside the frame­work of the gen­der based divi­sion of labor and the finan­cial and domes­tic sub­mis­sion of women, not only by the mid­dle class­es but also by large stratas of the Fordist work­ing class, care work has strong­ly influ­enced the stren­u­ous strug­gles for eman­ci­pa­tion led by the fem­i­nist move­ments of the 20th cen­tu­ry.

Marx­ist fem­i­nism dur­ing the 1970s, in clas­si­fy­ing domes­tic work as labor, has sim­ply unveiled its mys­ti­cal aspects – mys­ti­fied by attach­ment, love, sta­tus and by the search for a social­ly cod­i­fied and pre­de­fined role – includ­ing it among the basic com­po­nents of prim­i­tive accu­mu­la­tion.5

Cer­tain sec­tors of this work had been social­ized by a form of wel­fare that was strict­ly con­nect­ed to full employ­ment, but with the cri­sis those expens­es in the pub­lic bud­get that were des­tined to the assis­tance of vul­ner­a­ble peo­ple have been dras­ti­cal­ly cut in Europe, and con­se­quent­ly we are mov­ing towards more and more aggres­sive forms of pri­va­ti­za­tion. The social orga­ni­za­tion based on the fam­i­ly struc­ture, with inad­e­quate and min­i­mal pub­lic ser­vices, has been del­e­gat­ed to women, who have become unpaid ser­vice providers, so that all the work of care, of chil­dren, elder­ly and infirmed, has been charged on their shoul­ders.

Assum­ing then that the major­i­ty of repro­duc­tive work, unpaid or under­paid, has been and still is at the foun­da­tion of the process of cap­i­tal­ist accu­mu­la­tion, today, beside the rise in unpaid work – pushed back inside the house­hold – a new orga­ni­za­tion of repro­duc­tion is being orches­trat­ed, with min­i­mum wages and total exploita­tion, through selec­tive and divi­sive lines, between the cit­i­zen-mis­tress and the migrant work­er. With the wel­fare sys­tem no longer func­tion­ing, it is the pri­va­ti­za­tion that affects the poor­est sec­tors of the pop­u­la­tion, because the needs of those who are not self-suf­fi­cient are absolute and can’t be put aside.

Women rep­re­sent rough­ly 50 per­cent of the inter­na­tion­al migra­to­ry flux, accord­ing to the report com­piled in 2013 by the Unit­ed Nation Pop­u­la­tion Divi­sion.6 They are sought after for spe­cif­ic kinds of work: babysit­ter, house­keep­er, care­giv­er, nurse or sex-work­er; all kinds of work that have to do with the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als.

Even when pro­fes­sion­al­ly qual­i­fied, they are deemed fit only for care and domes­tic work, as those are con­sid­ered typ­i­cal­ly fem­i­nine, so they are under­paid and iso­lat­ed, con­fined to the house of their mas­ter or mis­tress.

To this pic­ture it is nec­es­sary to add an addi­tion­al fac­tor, at least in the case of Europe, regard­ing the fam­i­lies of ori­gin of the Euro­pean migrant women, usu­al­ly from Roma­nia or Moldo­va: these are women who left behind at home a fam­i­ly in which the moth­er was absent and oth­er work­ers, from Ukraine or Bielorus­sia, would some­time assist them in the work of care of chil­dren and elder­ly, thus cre­at­ing an inter­na­tion­al migra­to­ry chain inside the mar­ket of repro­duc­tion. In addi­tion, this aspect has to do with the mate­r­i­al repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als that, even if pri­va­tized, still presents strong social con­no­ta­tions relat­ed to the domin­ion and the exploita­tion of pover­ty.

4. Politics of economic reconciliation and cooperation do not address men and women equally and, in any case, do not offer real solutions because they are directed only to those who are fully employed. The crisis produces scarcity of goods and social relations but engenders also forms of cooperation that are independent from the state.

Fem­i­nist move­ments are still demand­ing that a por­tion of the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als (such as the care of chil­dren and elder­ly) be social­ized. On the oth­er hand, increas­ing the expen­di­ture for social ser­vices or the orga­ni­za­tion of the work of care is not on the agen­da in any of the states. In the Euro­pean Union the gen­er­al ten­den­cy is rather that of assign­ing the respon­si­bil­i­ties of the work of care to the sin­gle house­hold, through the use of a sys­tem of paid leave, even though this only applies to those who are ful­ly employed.

The sys­tem of paid leave is tra­di­tion­al­ly viewed through a per­spec­tive that sees women as the main care­givers, while lit­tle atten­tion is paid to the fathers or the grown chil­dren of depen­dent seniors. The most pro­gres­sive approach­es, like that of the leg­is­la­tion 2010/18/UE of the Euro­pean Union, pro­pose a gen­der neu­tral take on care work, where, when it comes to the care of chil­dren – but not to that of adults or elder­ly in need of assis­tance – both par­ents, if ful­ly employed, can take paid time off (even though in prac­tice it is most­ly the moth­ers who take advan­tage of these oppor­tu­ni­ties, since their salary is usu­al­ly low­er than that of the fathers and it is thus com­pat­i­ble with the per­centu­al reduc­tions set up at state lev­el. In the south of Europe there’s also a cul­tur­al stig­ma that works against the idea of fathers engag­ing in care work). Less pop­u­lar, if more inter­est­ing, is the prac­tice of manda­to­ry pater­ni­ty leave, par­al­lel to the manda­to­ry mater­ni­ty leave for moth­ers, even though in many states it is only a few days’ time off. In any case, it is worth repeat­ing that all these inter­ven­tions are direct­ed exclu­sive­ly at those who are employed full time.

This is what the pic­ture looks like today: waged labor, as depen­dent in its tra­di­tion­al forms on the pro­tec­tion guar­an­teed by pub­lic expen­di­tures (and for which T.H. Marshall’s project of a social cit­i­zen­ship, con­struct­ed around the idea of full employ­ment, should have allowed con­stant state fund­ing) is dis­ap­pear­ing.7 The pro­gres­sive impov­er­ish­ment of a large sec­tor of the Euro­pean pop­u­la­tion through unem­ploy­ment (esti­mat­ed at 28 mil­lion of unem­ployed in Europe, espe­cial­ly among the younger pop­u­la­tion), leaves a large num­ber of vul­ner­a­ble peo­ple with­out any social sup­port. There is more suf­fer­ing and the con­se­quence is a con­sid­er­able increase in the expens­es of the sin­gle house­holds – for instance to pay for health care or for pro­fes­sion­al care­tak­ers (there are an esti­mat­ed 700,000 pri­vate care­tak­ers in Italy, and the aver­age expen­di­ture for their salary is 920 euro a month: almost 10 per­cent of the entire health care bud­get!) –- but espe­cial­ly increased hours of work for fam­i­lies (which means essen­tial­ly for daugh­ters, moth­ers, and grand­moth­ers) who are tak­ing care of the elder­ly and the dis­abled, the chil­dren, and all those who need it, includ­ing those same youths who are unem­ployed or have unsta­ble jobs.8

The ide­ol­o­gy of neolib­er­al­ism puts a lot of empha­sis on the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the indi­vid­ual towards the choic­es and the risks of life. Today the good cit­i­zen is the self-made one (this goes togeth­er with the pri­va­ti­za­tion of ser­vices and resources that used to be pub­lic). The achieve­ments of the indi­vid­ual are put above any form of social aggre­ga­tion. What so called neolib­er­al­ism real­ly wants is to “lib­er­ate” cap­i­tal from any respon­si­bil­i­ty towards the repro­duc­tion of the labor force; it wants to erase the last residues of those Key­ne­sian poli­cies that, to this day, still force the state to guar­an­tee (even though less and less) cer­tain lev­els of repro­duc­tion.

Women know from expe­ri­ence that nobody is ever self-suf­fi­cient in life, not in youth or in old age, not when infirm, not as male or female, work­er or unem­ployed. In fact, the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als is at the foun­da­tion of social, eco­nom­ic, and polit­i­cal rela­tion­ships and rep­re­sents the only mean­ing­ful frame­work for coex­is­tence.

The con­crete base from which to start is then the abil­i­ty to think of indi­vid­u­als as peo­ple with bod­ies, think­ing of our­selves as inter­de­pen­dent, thus escap­ing the lib­er­al abstrac­tion of the self-suf­fi­cient indi­vid­ual (indi­vid­ual and not sub­ject).

In these times of cri­sis, the scarci­ty of resources has as a con­se­quence the cre­ation of inno­v­a­tive forms of coop­er­a­tive repro­duc­tion, most­ly vol­un­teer based, which nonethe­less tend to con­sti­tute a free alter­na­tive to the defi­cien­cies of wel­fare, social­iz­ing the costs of repro­duc­tion.

In addi­tion, the mate­r­i­al aspects of repro­duc­tion, weak­ened by the cri­sis, are being re-orga­nized in col­lab­o­ra­tive forms – such as buy­ing clubs, co-hous­ing, car-shar­ing, flea mar­kets, time banks, com­mu­nal gar­dens, care­givers co-ops, and com­mu­ni­ty clin­ics.

Two emblem­at­ic exam­ples of this process in Europe are Spain and Greece, where it is pos­si­ble to find forms of resis­tance to the cri­sis at the lev­el of social repro­duc­tion, such as health care ser­vices offered by vol­un­teer doc­tors, phar­ma­cies that dis­trib­ute drugs free of charge to those in need, or the PAH (Platafor­ma d’Afectats per la Hipote­ca, or the Plat­form for Peo­ple Affect­ed by Mort­gages, start­ed in 2009 in Cat­alo­nia) which was able to spread its expe­ri­ences and trans­for­ma­tive momen­tum beyond the mere net­work of activists. With­in the PAH, we face issues of hous­ing, habi­tat, sur­vival, and the vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of the body.

The PAH was able to orga­nize vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and turn it into polit­i­cal action. In Greece and Spain they were able to mobi­lize the impov­er­ished mid­dle class, which the cri­sis of 2008 had put in a sit­u­a­tion of pre­car­i­ous­ness. Bod­ies came out into the streets, and whole cities were turned into polit­i­cal spaces by their pres­ence.

Forms of repro­duc­tion alter­na­tive to the mar­ket sys­tem or to the van­ish­ing pub­lic ser­vices man­aged by the state, often can respond to imme­di­ate needs. The ques­tion is, are these inter­ven­tions able to pro­duce forms of social aggre­ga­tion on a larg­er scale?

5. Can these forms of socialization substitute for the welfare system? Undoubtedly there are grey zones: often they are not transferable or cover small geographical and social areas; often they are utilized to make up for the deficiencies of the public sector. Nonetheless, many innovative projects are emerging.

It is inter­est­ing to see how the auton­o­my and the pro­duc­tive and coop­er­a­tive abil­i­ties of the social fab­ric are often exalt­ed as able to make up for the defi­cien­cies of pub­lic ser­vices. In fact a strong ambiva­lence can be found both in forms of vol­un­tary social work and in non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tions that oper­ate with­in the area of the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als.

If on the one hand they rep­re­sent extra­or­di­nary mech­a­nisms of con­scious­ness rais­ing, on the oth­er they are per­fect­ly com­pat­i­ble with aus­ter­i­ty poli­cies, since they are means to social­ize the costs of repro­duc­tion.

It’s not a coin­ci­dence that local gov­ern­ments are rely­ing more and more, in the face of emer­gen­cies, on vol­un­tary social work and non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tions. There is a con­crete risk that the col­lec­tiviza­tion of the activ­i­ties of repro­duc­tion could become just a way to man­age pover­ty rather than a mech­a­nism to reap­pro­pri­ate wealth.

There is evi­dence that protest move­ments, even the most rad­i­cal of them, are not express­ing them­selves just with refusal, indig­na­tion, and attacks any­more. On the con­trary, they are becom­ing more and more able to offer alter­na­tive solu­tions.9 They seem to be tak­ing the form of an orga­ni­za­tion of the com­mon, of forms of pro­duc­tion and repro­duc­tion of life alter­na­tive to the mar­ket econ­o­my and to the state. Often they offer hybrid solu­tions, mid­way between the state and the mar­ket, with inno­v­a­tive con­tents.

The devel­op­ment of new means for the social­iza­tion of the costs of repro­duc­tion cre­ates a space that can be imag­ined as exist­ing between pub­lic and pri­vate, able to rein­te­grate bod­ies and their needs – those same bod­ies that are usu­al­ly exclud­ed from pol­i­tics and for­mal democ­ra­cy.

When it comes to the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als, the “com­mon” is a real­i­ty most­ly in fieri, of which we can fore­see just a few aspects, and its projects unfold on a lim­it­ed scale, often prompt­ed by the neces­si­ty of sur­vival. One of our most impor­tant goals is that of break­ing the iso­la­tion in which the work of repro­duc­tion is today orga­nized, iso­la­tion that affects most­ly women and that becomes dra­mat­ic when they are tak­ing care of those who are not self-suf­fi­cient, such as chil­dren, elder­ly, and the infirm.

Avoid­ing the empha­sis on the fea­si­bil­i­ty of expand­ing these new forms of social­iza­tion, and even tak­ing into con­sid­er­a­tion the dif­fi­cul­ties of rein­vent­ing forms of rela­tions inside the sphere of repro­duc­tion, it is pos­si­ble to observe how these first exper­i­ments express a desire for com­mu­ni­ty and a renewed pos­si­bil­i­ty for the cre­ation of social rela­tion­ships and change.

Nan­cy Fras­er claims that the polit­i­cal per­spec­tive that was orig­i­nal­ly meant for the democ­ra­ti­za­tion of the state and the empow­er­ing of its cit­i­zens is today used to legit­imize the com­mod­i­fi­ca­tion and the dis­in­te­gra­tion of the social state. On the oth­er hand, the out­look offered by a sol­i­dar­i­ty-based fem­i­nism could still be use­ful. The cur­rent cri­sis offers the pos­si­bil­i­ty to expand that per­spec­tive, con­nect­ing the dream of the lib­er­a­tion of women with that of a soci­ety found­ed on sol­i­dar­i­ty:

First, we might break the spu­ri­ous link between our cri­tique of the fam­i­ly wage and flex­i­ble cap­i­tal­ism by mil­i­tat­ing for a form of life that de-cen­tres waged work and val­oris­es unwaged activ­i­ties, includ­ing – but not only – care work.10

Sec­ond­ly, it is impor­tant to sep­a­rate labor from any notion of a well lived life, declar­ing the end of the mod­el of Work­fare, as it was already pre­fig­ured by some of the wom­ens’ move­ments.

Actu­al­ly, both lib­er­al and social­ist fem­i­nists sub­scribed to the typ­i­cal cap­i­tal­ist deval­u­a­tion of the work of repro­duc­tion, embrac­ing, as the only path to eman­ci­pa­tion, waged labor and the inte­gra­tion of women into the pub­lic sphere, exact­ly at the moment when it was the tar­get of a seri­ous attack by work­ers, both male and female, all over the world. Fem­i­nists aban­doned any strug­gle inside the sphere of repro­duc­tion, think­ing that, once ful­ly inte­grat­ed into the labor mar­ket, women would gain more social pow­er.11

At the same time, what can be called “dif­fer­ence fem­i­nism” con­sid­ered repro­duc­tion work as if it were ingrained in the nature of women, for­get­ting the con­di­tions of exploita­tion in which it happens,turning it into an essen­tial­ist notion.

Defin­ing repro­duc­tion as the fun­da­men­tal source of cap­i­tal­ist accu­mu­la­tion, Marx­ist fem­i­nism made it pos­si­ble to con­ceive of the pos­si­bil­i­ty of an over­turn towards a process of social­iza­tion that can rev­o­lu­tion­ize the actu­al con­di­tions of neolib­er­al exploita­tion and empha­size the mate­ri­al­i­ty of self-sus­te­nance.

Sex­u­al bod­ies, in order to sur­vive and repro­duce, need to be con­nect­ed to one anoth­er. Indi­vid­u­als are not able to devel­op, live, or pro­duce in soli­tude.

Com­pul­so­ry rela­tion­ships, typ­i­cal of those unyield­ing struc­tures of inter­con­nec­tion that were rev­o­lu­tion­ized by anti-author­i­tar­i­an move­ments dur­ing the sec­ond half of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, cor­re­spond­ed to the fac­to­ry mod­el, with its rigid and pyra­mi­dal orga­ni­za­tion. The dif­fuse design fac­to­ry, the idea of work as incor­po­rat­ed into the fab­ric of our life, are con­cepts able to extract free­dom from con­trol, sub­sum­ing it into a supe­ri­or instance. Rela­tion­ships devel­op remote­ly, become ethe­re­al, incor­po­re­al; our com­mu­ni­ca­tion, even when voice and facial expres­sions are includ­ed, doesn’t include the body, it’s bidi­men­sion­al. It is then nec­es­sary to reestab­lish ele­ments of mate­ri­al­i­ty also in the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als.

6. It is possible to reinvent new parameters for the reproduction of individuals, intrinsic to its own transformation and with a radical innovation of its contents. On the other hand, if we fail to consider the needs of those who are not self-sufficient and the work necessary for the care of bodies and relationships, we will continue producing forms of socialization tragically characterized by inequality.

The repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als is not just mate­r­i­al repro­duc­tion. There is a nec­es­sary “work of love,” a work to be done for the care of rela­tion­ships, which was anni­hi­lat­ed by the process of indi­vid­u­al­iza­tion pro­mot­ed by neolib­er­al­ism.

I won­der if it’s pos­si­ble to grasp, in the gen­er­al ten­den­cy that pro­motes the defense of the com­mon and the col­lec­tiviza­tion of mate­r­i­al repro­duc­tion, pos­si­bil­i­ties that go beyond its mere val­ue for resis­tance, enrich­ing it with poten­tials for the cre­ation of new forms of rela­tion­ships. This would make the prac­tices of social repro­duc­tion more open to ques­tion and less mechan­ic. Most impor­tant­ly, it would require a sub­stan­tial mod­i­fi­ca­tion of the the­o­ries sur­round­ing the process of trans­for­ma­tion, the rela­tion­ship with pol­i­tics, and the enun­ci­a­tion of prac­tices.

The main focus should be direct­ed at those who are not self-suf­fi­cient, that is, chil­dren, the elder­ly, infirm, the poor: these peo­ple depend on rela­tion­ships that can­not be man­aged on an emer­gency basis or only rely on the good­will of vol­un­teers. If we take the needs of these sub­jects as a start­ing point, a real change in the social repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als becomes more prac­ti­cal.

It is nec­es­sary to come up with ambi­tious projects, mak­ing the­o­ries avail­able to those who need to put them into prac­tice, in order to cre­ate real change. A change in the dynam­ic of rela­tion­ships but also a change in the con­nec­tions between knowl­edge and pow­er.

There are the­o­ries and pro­pos­als able to for­mu­late projects for new forms of social repro­duc­tion, respect­ful of the rela­tion­ship between gen­ders, of the phys­i­cal pres­ence of weak and vul­ner­a­ble bod­ies, of the con­junc­tion between the­o­ret­i­cal knowl­edge and the needs of indi­vid­u­als: these are the­o­ries sur­round­ing the notions of home, the city (the urban space), the com­mon, the health care sys­tem.

It is nec­es­sary to make an effort, both on the the­o­ret­i­cal and the prac­ti­cal lev­el, to think and then actu­al­ize forms of col­lec­tive wel­fare, tak­ing into account the pos­si­bil­i­ties implied in the pro­mo­tion of a social recom­po­si­tion, the increase in sol­i­dar­i­ty based exchanges and, most impor­tant­ly, beyond just want­i­ng to re-appro­pri­ate our wealth, the need for sol­i­dar­i­ty towards vul­ner­a­ble sub­jects. It is nec­es­sary to try and estab­lish an alliance between juridi­cal cul­ture and social move­ments, between prac­tices of self-care and the med­ical pro­fes­sion, between liv­ing in urban spaces and dream­ing of a city meant for liv­ing bod­ies.

We could ask our­selves if it’s pos­si­ble to cre­ate a con­nec­tion between pub­lic and col­lec­tive, mate­r­i­al repro­duc­tion and rela­tion­ships of attach­ment, inter­de­pen­den­cy and the free expres­sion of sub­jec­tiv­i­ty, acknowl­edge­ment of dif­fer­ences and the ten­sion towards equal­i­ty.

A first exam­ple of a pos­si­ble restruc­tura­tion of the dynam­ics of social repro­duc­tion is in the area of health care, where the pri­ma­ry fil­ter is that of the work of care. But that needs to over­come the prej­u­dices of a nor­ma­tive notion of well being, depen­dent from the pro­to­cols and the dik­tats of the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try, cre­at­ing inter­ac­tions between patients and health­care providers found­ed on a notion of health that is not med­ical­ized, depen­dent on drugs, rou­tinized, pathol­o­gized, treat­ed as an emer­gency, but rather as a place of resis­tance and trans­for­ma­tion of the con­di­tions of our exis­tence.12

Women have already opened a crit­i­cal dis­course around health and the use and con­fig­u­ra­tion of pub­lic health care infra­struc­tures. On the issue of abor­tion, Euro­pean move­ments recent­ly uni­fied under the slo­gan “I decide,” which implies the right of self-deter­mi­na­tion and the access to a sec­u­lar notion of repro­duc­tive health. Female doc­tors start­ed focus­ing on sex­u­al­ized bod­ies, launch­ing a prac­tice of med­ical care based on gen­der, with spe­cif­ic atten­tion to dif­fer­ences. Even though the rela­tion­ship between pro­fes­sion­als, ser­vices, and social move­ments reveals the exis­tence of insti­tu­tion­al and prac­ti­cal lim­i­ta­tions that are hard to recom­pose, this seems to be a pos­si­ble open path for the trans­for­ma­tion of social repro­duc­tion.

A sec­ond exam­ple could be that of the city, the metrop­o­lis. In a recent inter­view, Toni Negri describes the metrop­o­lis as equiv­a­lent to what the fac­to­ry was for old­er gen­er­a­tions, and the home as a res­i­den­tial machine for liv­ing and work­ing inside a dig­i­tized city, in which exist­ing and pro­duc­ing are inex­tri­ca­bly inter­con­nect­ed.13 Life and sur­vival are thus tied togeth­er, even though it is pos­si­ble to iden­ti­fy some areas of dis­en­fran­chise­ment if com­pared to the total con­trol of fac­to­ry work. In this home-machine, exploita­tion coex­ists with a few pos­si­bil­i­ties for liberation/emancipation both for men and women, who could reclaim a base income as a form of com­pen­sa­tion for the pro­duc­tive but espe­cial­ly for the domes­tic aspects of their work.

The spa­tial con­fig­u­ra­tion of the city around work, pro­duc­tion, and the place­ment of the bod­ies of the work­ers is now dif­fer­ent from the mod­el described in Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Road, in which mono­func­tion­al con­glom­er­ates defined the places of repro­duc­tion, while pro­duc­tion hap­pened in places iso­lat­ed and sep­a­rat­ed along class and gen­der lines.14

If it’s true that this sep­a­ra­tion (a spe­cif­ic space for men at work and one for repro­duc­tion reserved for women) has dis­ap­peared today, accord­ing to Negri – in the process that sees the mech­a­niza­tion of the home for pro­duc­tive pur­pos­es and the eman­ci­pa­tion of women from domes­tic work, made pos­si­ble by the progress in new tech­nolo­gies (even though he fails to demon­strate this point. The only thing he proves is that domes­tic work,the basic work of reproduction,has changed) – what hap­pened to the spaces of the com­mon, the spaces for the repro­duc­tion of social rela­tions?

The most preva­lent archi­tec­ture in a city should be the one that includes health care struc­tures, libraries, pre-schools, schools, pub­lic art gal­leries, muse­ums, and recre­ation­al facil­i­ties – all build­ings and spaces where the exchanges are not mon­e­tary and where, at the moment, the major­i­ty of peo­ple work­ing are women. The urban pub­lic sphere is the place par excel­lence, where non-mar­ket medi­at­ed exchanges can take place; a safe place for explo­ration, edu­ca­tion, and rest. It is the place where it’s pos­si­ble to exper­i­ment with democ­ra­cy.

It is nec­es­sary to cre­ate spaces in which the most vul­ner­a­ble sub­jects can coex­ist; spaces that are tru­ly pub­lic, where it would be pos­si­ble to spend time with­out hav­ing to buy any­thing; spaces for play­ing that are not sport fields, where there would be room for dream­ing and explor­ing.

The city is a com­mon, a place where social repro­duc­tion hap­pens. The urban­ized space reflects the lifestyle of its inhab­i­tants and it is at the same time the con­tain­er for the forms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion rec­og­nized and accept­ed by the com­mu­ni­ty. Pub­lic squares and recre­ation­al spaces instead of res­i­den­tial neigh­bor­hoods, social ser­vices that are effec­tive and acces­si­ble, the cre­ation of new forms of aggre­ga­tion, the con­struc­tion of a soci­ety where self-sus­te­nance hap­pens in a col­lec­tive space.

In pub­lic spaces bod­ies can meet, with their lim­i­ta­tions, their dif­fer­ent needs; in pub­lic spaces it is pos­si­ble to cre­ate inter­de­pen­dent forms of life, rein­vent a coop­er­a­tive sort of repro­duc­tion.

Cre­at­ing an urban col­lec­tive space can open the pos­si­bil­i­ty for find­ing alter­na­tives to the notion of neolib­er­al indi­vid­u­al­ism, start­ing from the free expres­sion of diverse sub­jec­tiv­i­ties, and from an aware­ness of mutu­al inter­de­pen­den­cies.

The sex­u­al body rep­re­sents a cri­tique of the stan­dard sub­ject of the social con­tract, sub­ject of rights and pol­i­tics, inside the frame of lib­er­al­ism (a sub­ject sup­posed neu­tral, self-suf­fi­cient, free of com­mit­ments and rela­tion­ships, sig­ni­fied only by its capac­i­ty to choose ratio­nal­ly, on the basis of a util­i­tar­i­an cal­cu­la­tion of costs and ben­e­fits), and opens up a path for the pos­si­bil­i­ty to rec­og­nize sex­u­al­ized sin­gu­lar­i­ties, lim­it­ed bod­ies, and the need for rela­tion­ships and col­lab­o­ra­tion. If this nar­ra­tive has to become a form of social­iza­tion, since it is about the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als, it can­not be lim­it­ed to the abstrac­tion of the­o­ries, it must find spaces where it would be pos­si­ble to prac­tice and rein­vent new forms of social repro­duc­tion. This is about a rad­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion of our lifestyle, it is about con­quer­ing spaces of free­dom and prac­tices of equal­i­ty that include the expres­sion of diverse forms of sub­jec­tiv­i­ty and the acknowl­edge­ment of dif­fer­ent and uni­ver­sal forms of inter­de­pen­den­cy.

– Trans­lat­ed by Ful­via Ser­ra


  1. My analy­sis is based on Euro­pean data, both at the lev­el of the Euro­pean Union in gen­er­al, and at the lev­el of sin­gle Euro­pean states. 

  2. For an analy­sis of the struc­ture of the repro­duc­tion of indi­vid­u­als, Alise Del Re, “Work­ers’ Inquiry and Repro­duc­tive Labor,” View­point Mag­a­zine 3 (Sep­tem­ber 2013); Alise Del Re, “Care and Com­mon,” in Genre 46 no. 2, “Homo Liber: Essays in Hon­or of Anto­nio Negri,” Tim­o­thy S. Murph, ed. (Sum­mer 2013): 123-35. 

  3. In Sep­tem­ber 1994, the Inter­na­tion­al Con­fer­ence on Pop­u­la­tion and Devel­op­ment, orga­nized by the UN in Cairo, point­ed to a strong clash between reli­gious insti­tu­tions and sec­u­lar states around the issue of con­trol­ling the sex­u­al­i­ty and the body of women. On the issue of abor­tion we are wit­ness­ing, in recent years, an upsurge of pro-life move­ments. See, Jacque­line Heinen, “Onslaughts on the Right to Choose: A Transcon­ti­nen­tal Panora­ma,” AG About Gen­der 3, no. 5 (2014); Yas­min Nair, “Omo­nor­ma­tiv­ità,” Queer Up! Mil­i­tant trans­la­tions and notes on gen­der and queer, June 26, 2015. 

  4. The British tele­vi­sion dra­ma Down­town Abbey is a good exam­ple of these kinds of rela­tion­ships. 

  5. Mari­arosa Dal­la Cos­ta and Sel­ma James, The Pow­er of Women and the Sub­ver­sion of the Com­mu­ni­ty (Bris­tol: Falling Wall Press, 1975); Lucia Chisté, Alisa Del Re, and Edvige For­ti, Oltre il lavoro domes­tic (Milano: Fel­trinel­li, 1978); Mari­arosa Dal­la Cos­ta, Famiglia, wel­fare e Sta­to tra pro­gres­sis­mo e Newdeal (Milan: F. Angeli, 1983). 

  6. Unit­ed Nations Depart­ment of Eco­nom­ic and Social Affairs, Pop­u­la­tion Divi­sion, “Inter­na­tion­al Migra­tion Report,” 2013. 

  7. Fran­co Berar­di Bifo, “Di lavoro non ce n’è più bisog­no,” Com­mon­ware, July 16, 2015. 

  8. Ibid. Unem­ploy­ment is increas­ing today in every coun­try in Europe. Half of the young Euro­pean peo­ple do not have a pay­check, or if they do, it is mea­ger and irreg­u­lar. 

  9. Exam­ples of a propos­i­tive strug­gle are the ZAD – zone à défendre - which can some­times express itself vio­lent­ly, or the NO-TAV in Italy, which offers alter­na­tive solu­tions to the prob­lem of high speed trains. Recent­ly in Milan, new forms and options for crit­i­cal work are being exper­i­ment­ed, address­ing the prob­lem of pre­car­i­ty, com­mu­ni­ca­tion and self-man­age­ment, with the col­lab­o­ra­tion, not always easy, of plur­al sub­jects, who were able any­way to par­tic­i­pate in the same net­work (NO Expo protest against pre­car­i­ous and unpaid labor). 

  10. Nan­cy Fras­er, “How fem­i­nism became capitalism’s hand­maid­en – and how to reclaim it,” The Guardian, Octo­ber 14, 2013. This arti­cle crit­i­cizes, maybe unfair­ly, the neolib­er­al devi­a­tion of cer­tain fem­i­nist move­ments and affirms that the ambiva­lence of fem­i­nism was resolved in favor of a (neo)liberal indi­vid­u­al­ism. Nan­cy Fras­er, For­tunes of Fem­i­nism from State Man­aged Cap­i­tal­ism to Neolib­er­al Cri­sis (New York: Ver­so, 2013). 

  11. Anto­nio Alia, “Tra crisi del­la ripro­duzione sociale e wel­fare comune. Inter­vista a Sil­via Fed­eri­ci,” Decem­ber 31, 2013. 

  12. Fux­ia Block, “Qeer­sul­to­ria: esper­i­men­ti di wel­fare dal bas­so per un nuo­vo dirit­to alla salute e alla vivi­bil­ità,” Tut­ta salute! Resisten­ze (trans) fem­min­iste e queer, nos. 3-4, (July-Decem­ber 2014): 37-49. 

  13. Toni Negri, “L’abitazione del gen­er­al intel­lect. Dial­o­go di Fed­eri­co Tom­masel­lo con Toni Negri sull’abitare nel­la metropoli con­tem­po­ranea,” EuroNo­made, June 2015. 

  14. The sit­u­a­tion described in Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Road, the nov­el writ­ten by Richard Yates in 1961, shows a spa­tial strat­e­gy meant to con­fine women in the sub­ur­ban space and in a per­ma­nent domes­tic dimen­sion. 

Author of the article

is associate professor at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Padova.