Género, clase y emancipaciónuna lectura feminista de Erik Olin Wright

  1. Campillo Poza, Inés 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
RES. Revista Española de Sociología

ISSN: 2445-0367,  1578-2824

Any de publicació: 2021

Títol de l'exemplar: Monográfico de Cuidados, sección especial dedicada a Erik Olin Wright, debate sobre Ingreso Mínimo Vital, más artículos de miscelánea y reseñas

Volum: 30

Número: 2

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.22325/FES/RES.2021.41 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: RES. Revista Española de Sociología

Resum

Erik O. Wright's work can be interpreted as an attempt to renovate sociological Marxism, a tradition that has maintained an ‘unhappy marriage’ with feminism, to use Hartmann’s well-known expression. This paper aims to examine Wright's work from a feminist perspective. In particular, it discusses Wright's theoretical reflection on two problems: on the one hand, the intersection of class and gender in contemporary capitalism; and, on the other, the route to women’s emancipation, paying special attention to his idea of a genderlessness society and to the potential effects of ‘real utopias’ such as equal non-transferrable parental leaves. The aim of the article is not only to review Wright's work from a feminist perspective, but to explore the ways through which his contribution connects with dilemmas and debates of contemporary feminism.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Acker, J. (1973). Women and Social Stratification: A Case of Intellectual Sexism. American Journal of Sociology, 78(4), 936-945.
  • Ackerman, B. A., Alstott, A. y Van Parijs, P. (2006). Redesigning distribution: Basic income and stakeholder grants as alternative cornerstones for a more egalitarian capitalism. Londres: Verso.
  • Albright, K. (2008). In Families or as Individuals? Theoretical and Methodological Problems in the Incorporation of Women in Class Analysis. Sociology Compass, 2(5), 1672-1689. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00156.x
  • Baxter, J. y Wright, E. O. (2000). The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A Comparative Study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender & Society, 14(2), 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124300014002004
  • Bowles, S. y Gintis, H. (1998). Recasting egalitarianism: New rules for communities, states, and markets. Londres: Verso.
  • Brighouse, H. y Wright, E. O. (2009). Strong Gender Egalitarianism. En J. C. Gornick y M. Meyers (eds.), Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labor (pp. 79-92). Londres: Verso.
  • Burawoy, M. (2020). A Tale of Two Marxisms. New Left Review, 121, 66-98.
  • Caínzos, M. (2020). Desigualdad persistente, pero no un techo de cristal. Sobre género y autoridad en el trabajo. Trabajo presentado en Jornadas en Homenaje a Erik Olin Wright, Madrid.
  • Campillo, I. y Sola, J. (2020). La teoría de los recursos de poder: una revisión crítica. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 170, 19-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.170.19
  • Cohen, J. y Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and democracy. Londres: Verso.
  • Delphy, C. (1984). Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
  • Folbre, N. (2009). Reforming Care. En J. C. Gornick y M. Meyers (eds.), Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labor (pp. 111-128). Londres: Verso.
  • Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of Feminism. From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. Londres: Verso.
  • Fung, A. y Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Londres: Verso.
  • Gastil, J. y Wright, E. O. (2019). Legislature by Lot. Transformative Designs for Deliberative Governance. Londres: Verso.
  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Goldthorpe, J. H. (1983). Women and Class Analysis: In Defense of the Conventional View. Sociology, 17(4), 465-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038583017004001
  • Goldthorpe, J. H. (1984). Women and Class Analysis: A Reply to the Replies. Sociology, 18(4), 491-499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038584018004002
  • Gornick, J. C. y Meyers, M. (2009). Gender equality: transforming family divisions of labor. Londres: Verso.
  • Hartmann, H. I. (1979). The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a more Progressive Union. Capital & Class, 3(2), 1-33.
  • Haslanger, S. (2012). Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Heath, A. y Britten, N. (1984). Women’s Jobs do Make a Difference: A Reply to Goldthorpe. Sociology, 18(4), 475-490.
  • Hernando, A. (2012). La fantasía de la individualidad: sobre la construcción sociohistórica del sujeto moderno. Buenos Aires: Katz.
  • Hochschild, A. (2009). La mercantilización de la vida íntima. Apuntes de la casa y el trabajo. Buenos Aires: Katz.
  • Huber, E. y Stephens, J. (2000). Partisan Governance, Women's Employment, and the Social Democratic Service State. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657460
  • Krippner, G. (2019). Comment on Michael Burawoy’s “Erik Olin Wright: A Tale of Two Marxisms”. Trabajo presentado en Erik Olin Wright Festschrift, Madison.
  • McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771-1800.
  • Nussbaum, M. (8 de octubre de 1992). Justice for Women! The New York Review of Books. Recuperado de https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1992/10/08/justice-for-women/
  • Okin, S. M. (1991). Justice, Gender, and the Family. Nueva York: Basic Books.
  • Orloff, A. (2009). Should feminists aim for gender symmetry? Why a dual-earner/dual-caregiver society is not every feminist's utopia. En J. C. Gornick & M. Meyers (eds.), Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labor (pp. 129-160). Londres: Verso.
  • Phoenix, A. y Pattynama, P. (2006). Intersectionality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065751
  • Roemer, J. E. (1989). Teoría general de la explotación y de las clases. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
  • Roemer, J. E. (1996). Equal shares: Making market socialism work. Londres: Verso.
  • Sandel, M. (1984). The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self. Political Theory 12(1), 81-96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/191382
  • Seidman, G. (2020). Class, gender and utopian community: In memory of Erik Olin Wright. Trabajo presentado en Congreso Transforming Capitalism Through Real Utopias, Coimbra (Portugal).
  • Shalev, M. (2009). Class Divisions among Women. En J. C. Gornick & M. Meyers (eds.), Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labor (pp. 255-282). Londres: Verso.
  • Sola, J. (2020). Las utopías reales de Erik Olin Wright: ¿una reconstrucción científica del socialismo utópico? Trabajo presentado en Jornadas en Homenaje a Erik Olin Wright, Madrid.
  • Stanworth, M. (1984). Women and Class Analysis: A Reply to John Goldthorpe. Sociology, 18(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038584018002001
  • Weldon, S. (2006). The Structure of Intersectionality: A Comparative Politics of Gender. Politics & Gender, 2(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X06231040
  • Wright, E. O. (1979). Class Structure and Income Determination. Nueva York: Academic Press
  • Wright, E. O. (1983). Clase, crisis y Estado. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
  • Wright, E. O. (1987). Rethinking, Once Again, the Concept of Class Structure. En E. O. Wright, U. Becker, J. Brenner, M. Burawoy, V. Burris, G. Carchedi…, P. Van Parijs, The Debate on Classes (pp. 260-347). Londres: Verso.
  • Wright, E. O. (1989). Women in the Class Structure. Politics & Society, 17(1), 35-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/003232928901700102
  • Wright, E. O. (1993). Explanation and Emancipation in Marxism and Feminism. Sociological Theory, 11(1), 39-54.
  • Wright, E. O. (1994a). Clases. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
  • Wright, E. O. (1994b). Interrogating Inequality: Essays on Class Analysis, Socialism and Marxism. Londres: Verso.
  • Wright, E. O. (2000). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wright, E. O. (2005). Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wright, E. O. (2011). In defense of genderlessness. En A. Gosseries & P. Vanderborght (eds.), Arguing about justice (pp. 403-413). Lovaina: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
  • Wright, E. O. (2014). Construyendo utopías reales. Madrid: Akal.
  • Wright, E. O. (2015). Understanding class. Londres: Verso.
  • Wright, E. O. (2019). How to be an anticapitalist in the twenty-first century. Londres: Verso.
  • Wright, E. O. (2020). Christmas-January 12th [en línea]. Recuperado de https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/erikolinwright/journal
  • Wright, E. O., Baxter, J. y Bikelund, G. E. (1995). The gender gap in workplace authority: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 60 (3), 407-35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096422?seq=1
  • Wright, E. O. y Baxter, J. (2000). The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A Reply to Critics. Gender & Society, 14(6), 814-821. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124300014006008
  • Wright, E. O. y Rogers, J. (2011). American society: How it really works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company..
  • Wright, E. O., Shire, K., Hwang, S.-L., Dolan, M. y Baxter, J. (1992). The non-effects of class on the gender division of labor in the home: A Comparative Study of Sweden and the United States. Gender & Society, 6(2), 252-282.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet