Now finally published at EMES Conferences Selected Papers Series. I hope you enjoy reading this paper.
"Departing from a feminist rereading of Polanyi’s work, proposed by Waller and Jennings (1991), I intend to discuss the Polanyian concept of disembeddedness within market societies, by interacting with the points of disagreement they presented regarding the limits of Polanyi’s criticism on formalist economics. Given Polanyi was described as being epistemologically complacent with the formalist model to describe capitalist economies and that they argued the formalist perspective has deepened the abyss between family and economy domains, I discuss to what extent the modern gender meanings related to this split still remain in case of non-western perspectives of gender. Waller and Jennings have argued that the formalist analysis reinforces the invisibility of non market social arrangements, equally indispensable to provide an accurate picture of the provisioning dynamics which caracterizes, first and foremost, the actual economies. Despite all the promising convergence between Polanyi’s theoretical perspective and a feminist reinterpretation of Economics, Polanyi is assumed as having emphasised the inadequacy of formalist analysis for understanding non market societies and doing so underestimated the relevance of non market social arrangements within these societies.
At the heart of the matter are two key issues. The first one is related to the usual readings of the concept of (dis)embeddedness and the belief that all economies may be primarily embedded - an idea supported by some New Economic Sociology scholars such as Swedberg (1997), Granovetter (1985) and Barber (1995). To a certain extent, this interpretation is assumed by Waller and Jennings when debating these social arrangements from a feminist perspective. Otherwise, as Polanyi’s concept of disembeddedness refers to macroeconomic level, we may question this latter statement. So I argue that, despite the relevance of their analysis, some Waller and Jennings’s critiques to Polanyi should be better framed.
The second idea refers to the issue of gender. I question if the split between domestic domain and economy - assumed for the anglo-american context in the 19th century, according to Nicholson (1986) and Waller and Jennings (1991) - may be applied as well to gender issues everywhere. Relative to this, Oyěwùmí’s contributions (2003: 1) are welcomed to broaden the scope when she “interrogates gender and allied concepts based on African cultural experiences and epistemologies”. Somewhat similarly, Lugones (2008), proposing the concept of coloniality of gender and thinking of subaltern women in Latin America, argues that “modern colonial gender system” has its own characteristics and may not be applied to some indigenous women. So patriarchy should not be raised as an universal category to explain gender roles and gender social meanings worldwide. It does not mean that the split between domestic and economic domains in modern societies should be considered completely inappropriate to describe the invisibility of women in capitalist production system. Given the porosity of modern capitalism even over non-market societies (indigenous communities) and peripheral economies worldwide, this women invisibility on modern economic issues has also affected non-western women’s reality.
My question is however epistemological: is it proper to say that Polanyi could have deepened his critique to the formalist model by pointing out its inadequacy for market societies and in doing so by identifying the inextricability between family and market domains in the modern society? Would this analysis be extended to non-western contexts nowadays affected by market economy? Departing from the concept of Epistemologies of the South, proposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2014), and from the works of Lugones (2008), Oyěwùmí (1997) and Segato (2012), I question if Waller and Jennings’ critique to Polanyi’s ideas makes sense when applied to non-european or anglo-american contexts, in which gender concepts and roles may assume different trajectories".