Advertisement

Feminist Review

, Volume 109, Issue 1, pp 124–145 | Cite as

migrant women and social reproduction under austerity

  • Gwyneth Lonergan
Article

Abstract

Since coming to power in 2010, the UK Coalition government has enacted a series of cuts to public spending, under the auspices of austerity. Underpinning these cuts is a neo-liberal model of citizenship, in which citizens are expected to be autonomous, independent and economically productive, and in which the responsibilities of citizenship outweigh the rights. This model of citizenship is characterised by a paradoxical approach to social reproduction. The Coalition government has taken a significant interest in social reproduction as a means of creating the next generation of ‘good’ neo-liberal citizens; yet, the current austerity measures involve the withdrawal of state support for social reproduction activities. Drawing on participant observation carried out with migrant women’s groups in Sheffield and Manchester, as well as interviews with group members, this article demonstrates how the government’s paradoxical approach to social reproduction, combined with gendered and racialised discourses of citizenship and ‘Britishness’, have led to policies that place ethnic minority migrant women in an untenable situation. The social reproduction activities of ethnic minority migrant women are the subject of intense government interest, because of the concern that they will be unable to produce ‘good’ neo-liberal citizens. In some cases, this has led to government policies clearly intended to dissuade ‘undesirable’ migrants from having children. In other cases, migrant women are expected to show their commitment to integration, both for themselves and their children, specifically by learning English, even as the government has drastically cut funding for English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) classes. While seemingly paradoxical, this is in keeping with a racialised neo-liberal model of citizenship under which the ‘responsible’ migrant mother should be able to parent and learn English without government assistance. Nonetheless, these policies are actually self-defeating, as they prevent migrant women from exhibiting the very characteristics of neo-liberal citizenship that they are ostensibly trying to encourage.

Keywords

austerity migration social reproduction citizenship neo-liberalism gender 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the women in Manchester and Sheffield who agreed to participate in this research project. The author would also like to thank Bridget Byrne and Jonathan Darling, as well as the Feminist Review editors and reviewers, for their valuable comments on this article.

References

  1. Abraham, M., Ngan-ling Chow, E., Maratou-Alipranti, L. and Tastsoglou, E. (2010) ‘Rethinking citizenship with women in focus’ in Abraham, M., Ngan-ling Chow, E., Maratou-Alipranti, L. and Tastsoglou, E. (2010) editors, Contours of Citizenship: Women, Diversity and Practices of Citizenship, Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 1–22.Google Scholar
  2. Alakeson, V. and Hurrell, A. (2012) ‘Counting the costs of childcare’, London: The Resolution Foundation, http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Counting_the_costs_of_childcare_2.pdf, last accessed 3 November 2014.
  3. Anthias, F., Morokvasic-Müller, M. and Kontos, M. (2013) ‘Introduction: Paradoxes of integration’ in Anthias, F., Morokvasic-Müller, M. and Kontos, M. (2013) editors, Paradoxes of Integration: Female Migrants in Europe, Heidelberg, New York and London: Springer Dordrecht, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthias, F. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1992) Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and the Anti-Racist Struggle, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bakker, I. (2007) ‘Social reproduction and the constitution of a gendered political economy’ New Political Economy, Vol. 12, No. 4: 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benhabib, S. (2004) The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blunkett, D. (2002) ‘Integration with diversity: globalisation and the renewal of democracy and civil society’ in Griffith, P. and Leonard, M. (2002) editors, Reclaiming Britishness, London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 65–77.Google Scholar
  8. Borchorst, A. and Siim, B. (1987) ‘Women and the advanced welfare state—a new kind of patriarchal power?’ in Showstack Sassoon, A. (1987) editor, Women and the State, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) ‘Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”’ in Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) editors, Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, P. (2012) ‘Free nursery places for two-year-olds to be funded from Sure Start pot’ The Guardian, 27 September, http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/sep/27/free-nursery-places-funded-sure-start, last accessed 4 June 2014.
  11. Bussemaker, J. (2005) ‘Introduction: An ethnographic portrait of a precarious life: getting by on even less’ in Bussemaker, J. (2005) editor, Citizenship and Welfare State Reform in Europe, London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Cameron, D. (2014) ‘David Cameron: We’re building an immigration system that puts Britain first’ The Telegraph, 28 July, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10995875/David-Cameron-Were-building-an-immigration-system-that-puts-Britain-first.html, last accessed 15 August 2014.
  13. Cheney, D. (1996) ‘Those whom the immigration law has kept apart let no one join together: a view on immigration incantation’ in Jarrett-Macauley, D. (1996) editor, Reconstructing Womanhood, Reconstructing Feminism, London and NY: Routledge, 58–84.Google Scholar
  14. De Agostini, P. and Brewer, M. (2013) ‘Credit Crunched: Single parents, universal credit and the struggle to make work pay’, London: Gingerbread, http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/1933/Credit-crunched, last accessed 4 June 2014.
  15. De Benedictis, S. (2012) ‘ “Feral” parents: austerity parenting under neoliberalism’ Studies in the Maternal Vol. 4, No. 2: 1–21, http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/back_issues/4_2/documents/DeBenedictis_SiM_4%282%292012.pdf, last accessed 3 November 2014.
  16. Department of Health (2013) ‘Sustaining services, ensuring fairness: government response to the consultation on migrant access and financial contribution to NHS provision in England’, London: Department of Health, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 268630/Sustaining_services__ensuring_fairness_-_Government_response_to_consultation.pdf, last accessed 7 June 2014.Google Scholar
  17. Department for Work and Pensions (2010) ‘Universal Credit: welfare that works’, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 48897/universal-credit-full-document.pdf, last accessed 5 June 2013.Google Scholar
  18. Department for Work and Pensions (2013) ‘Government response to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee’s third report of Session 2012-13: Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants’, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 221715/uc-wpsc-response.pdf, last accessed 6 June 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Education (2011) ‘A new approach to child poverty: tackling the causes of disadvantage and transforming families’ lives’, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 177031/CM-8061.pdf, last accessed 4 June 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Dwyer, P. (2002) ‘Making sense of social citizenship: some user views on welfare rights and responsibilities’ Critical Social Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2: 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erel, U. (2011) ‘Reframing migrant mothers as citizens’ Citizenship Studies, Vol. 15, No. 6–7: 695–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fawcett Society (2013a) ‘Single mothers: singled out’, London: Fawcett Society, http://uat.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Single-MothersSingled-Out-The-impact-of-2010-15-tax-and-benefit-changes-on-women-and-men.pdf, last accessed 11 December 2014.
  23. Fawcett Society (2013b) ‘The changing labour market: delivering for women, delivering for growth’, London: Fawcett Society, http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Fawcett-The-changing-labour-market.pdf, last accessed 3 December 2013.
  24. Feminist Fightback Collective (2011) ‘Cuts are a feminist issue’ Soundings, Issue 49: 73–84.Google Scholar
  25. Gedalof, I. (2007) ‘Unhomely homes: women, family and belonging in UK discourses of migration and asylum’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gedalof, I. (2009) ‘Birth, belonging and migrant mothers: narratives of reproduction in feminist migration studies’ Feminist Review, Issue 93: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillies, V. (2005) ‘Raising the “meritocracy”: parenting and the individualization of social class’ Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 5: 835–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilroy, P. (1987) ‘There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack’: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  29. Gough, J. (2002) ‘Neoliberalism and socialisation in the contemporary city: opposites, complements and instabilities’ in Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) editors, Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Her Majesty's (HM) Treasury (2010) ‘Budget 2010’, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_complete.pdf, last accessed 6 June 2013.
  31. Hernes, H.M. (1987) ‘Women and the welfare state: the transition from private to public dependence’ in Showstack Sassoon, A. (1987) editor, Women and the State, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Holston, J. (1999) ‘Spaces of insurgent citizenship’ in Holston, J. (1999) editor, Cities and Citizenship, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 155–176.Google Scholar
  33. Home Office (2012) ‘Statement of intent: family migration’ London: Home Office Publications, http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf, last accessed 20 June 2012.Google Scholar
  34. Jensen, T. (2012) ‘Tough love in tough times’ Studies in the Maternal Vol. 4, No. 2: 1–26, http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/documents/Jensen_SiM_4(2)2012.pdf, last accessed 3 November 2014.
  35. Joshi, P. (2004) ‘Gender and procedural issues in the UK asylum system’, Refugee Women: Rights & Wrongs. Report of a Seminar at the European Social Form, organised by IMECE Turkish Speaking Women’s Group, British Red Cross Refugee Unit, Refugee Women’s Association, Refugee Women’s Resource Project and Iranian Community Centre, http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Refugee-Women-Rights-and-Wrongs.pdf, last accessed 1 April 2010.
  36. Klug, F. (1989) ‘Oh to be in England: the British case study’ in Yuval Davis, N. and Anthias, F. (1989) editors, Woman-Nation-State, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kofman, E. (1997) ‘When society was simple: gender and ethnic divisions and the far and new right in France’ in Charles, N. and Hintjens, H. (1997) editors, Gender, Ethnicity and Political Ideologies, NY and London: Routledge, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laslett, B. and Brenner, J. (1989) ‘Gender and social reproduction: historical perspectives’ Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15: 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lentin, R. (2004) ‘Strangers and strollers: feminist notes on researching migrant m/others’ Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 27, No. 4: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lister, R. (2003) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, 2nd edition, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Luibheid, E. (2006) ‘Sexual regimes and migration controls: reproducing the Irish nation-state in transnational contexts’ Feminist Review, Issue 83: 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mama, A. (1984) ‘Black women, the economic crisis and the British state’ Feminist Review, Issue 17: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mackintosh, M. (1984) ‘Gender and economics: the sexual division of labour and the subordination of women’ in Young, K., Wolkowitz, C. and McCullagh, R. (1984) editors, Of Marriage and the Market, 2nd edition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Marshall, T.H. (2009 [1950]) ‘Citizenship and social class’ in Manza, J. and Sauder, M. (2009) editors, Inequality and Society, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  45. Office for Budget Responsibility (2014) ‘Economic and fiscal outlook’, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 76, http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/37839-OBR-Cm-8820-accessible-web-v2.pdf, last accessed 8 June 2014.
  46. Pateman, C. (1989) The Disorder of Women, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pulkingham, J., Fuller, S. and Kershaw, P. (2010) ‘Lone motherhood, welfare reform and active citizen subjectivity’ Critical Social Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2: 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Purcell, M. (2003) ‘Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 27, No. 3: 564–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Runnymede Trust (2000) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain—The Parekh Report, London: Profile.Google Scholar
  51. Samantrai, R. (2002) AlterNatives: Black Feminism in the Postimperial Nation, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schinkel, W. and van Houdt, F. (2010) ‘The double helix of cultural assimilation and neo-liberalism: citizenship in contemporary governmentality’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 4: 696–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shepherd, J. (2011) ‘Anger over English lesson funding cuts’ The Guardian, 14 April, http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/apr/14/english-lessons-funding-immigrants, last accessed 21 January 2013.
  54. Showstack Sassoon, A. (1987a) ‘Introduction: the personal and the intellectual, fragments and order, international trends and national specificities’ in Showstack Sassoon, A. (1987) editor, Women and the State, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Showstack Sassoon, A. (1987b) ‘Women’s new social role: contradictions of the welfare state’ in Showstack Sassoon, A. (1987) editor, Women and the State, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Solomos, J. (2003) Race and Racism in Britain, 3rd edition, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Soysal, Y.N. (2012) ‘Citizenship, immigration, and the European social project: rights and obligations of individuality’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63, No. 1: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tyler, I. (2013) Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain, London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  59. van Houdt, F., Suvarierol, S. and Schinkel, W. (2011) ‘Neoliberal communitarian citizenship: current trends toward “earned citizenship” in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands’ International Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 3: 408–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waite, L. (2012) ‘Neo-assimilationist citizenship and belonging policies in Britain: meanings for transnational migrants in northern England’ Geoforum, Vol. 43, No. 2: 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walby, S. (1994) ‘Is citizenship gendered?’ Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 2: 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waugh, M. (2010) ‘The Mothers in Exile Project: women asylum seekers’ and refugees’ experiences of pregnancy and childbirth in Leeds’, Leeds: Women’s Health Matters (WHM), http://www.womenshealthmatters.org.uk/downloads/, last accessed 4 June 2014.
  63. Werbner, P. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1999) ‘Introduction: women and the new discourse of citizenship’ in Werbner, P. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1999) editors, Women, Citizenship and Difference, London and New York: Zed Books, 1–38.Google Scholar
  64. Whittaker, M. (2013) ‘Narrowed horizons: the fiscal choices at Spending Review 2013 and beyond’, London: The Resolution Foundation, http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/narrowed-horizons-fiscal-choices/, last accessed 5 June 2013.
  65. Women’s Budget Group (2012) ‘The Impact on women of the Budget 2012’, London: Women’s Budget Group, http://wbg.org.uk/pdfs/The-Impact-on-Women-of-the-Budget-2012-FINAL.pdf, last accessed 10 November 2013.
  66. Women’s Budget Group (2013) ‘The impact on women of Budget 2013—A budget for inequality and recession’, London: Women’s Budget Group, http://www.wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WBG_Budget-Analysis_2013.pdf, last accessed 10 November 2013.
  67. Yuval-Davis, N. (1997) Gender and Nation, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Feminist Review 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gwyneth Lonergan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations