Abstract
In mainstream neoliberal gender and development discourse, access to paid work is often proposed as a solution to address gender inequality and enhance the well-being of women. However, most of these discussions are embedded in Western liberal philosophical tradition that cherishes enlightened values and lay great emphases on individual actors, rational scientific perspectives and democratic processes. This essentialist perspective may limit our ability to understand the lifeworlds of women whose values have been shaped by non-liberal traditions. Measuring the well-being of these women through pre-existing analytical categories may produce disembodied voices without context. Therefore, it is important to investigate as to what extent these pre-existing analytical categories such as well-being, agency and empowerment resonate with the goals and living realities of women in global south. In this chapter, we explore the narrative life stories of homeworkers to understand meaning and relevance of invisible homework, performed within the confines of household, for well-being of these workers. We use Sen’s capability approach as an analytical lens in order to get closer to how female homeworkers experience or construct their own sense of well-being. The multidimensionality of well-being is a red thread that runs through the entire chapter.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This discourse is largely built on three important philosophical traditions, namely liberal feminism, colonial development discourse and neoclassical economic theorizing.
References
Bathmaker, A. M., & Harnett, P. (2010). Exploring Learning, Identity, and Power Through Life History and Narrative Research. New York: Routledge.
Baylina, M., & Schier, M. (2002). Homework in Germany and Spain: Industrial Restructuring and the Meaning of Homework for Women. GeoJournal, 56(4), 295–304.
Binder, M. (2013). Subjective Well-Being Capabilities: Bridging the Gap Between the Capability Approach and Subjective Well-Being Research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(5), 1197–1217.
Burchielli, R., Delaney, A., & Goren, N. (2014). Garment Homework in Argentina: Drawing Together the Threads of Informal and Precarious Work. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 25(1), 63–80.
Clark, D. A. (2005). Sen’s Capability Approach and the Many Spaces of Human Well-being. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(8), 1339–1368.
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and Fuzzwords: Deconstructing Development Discourse. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 471–484.
Gandjour, A. (2008). Mutual Dependency Between Capabilities and Functionings in Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. Soc Choice Welfare, 31(2), 345–350.
Harris, L. (2003). Home-based Teleworking and the Employment Relationship: Managerial Challenges and Dilemmas. Personnel Review, 32(4), 422–437.
Jasek-Rysdahl, K. (2001). Applying Sen’s Capabilities Framework to Neighborhoods: Using Local Asset Maps to Deepen Our Understanding of Well-being. Review of Social Economy, 59(3), 313–329.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Naz, F. (2017). The Position of Female Homeworkers in a Global Supply Chain: How Do Capitalist Labor Market Practices Interplay with Gender ideologies? In M. Haase (Ed.), The Changing Basis of Economic Responsibility: A Look from the Perspective of Today (pp. 125–147). Berlin: Springer.
Naz, F., & Bögenhold, D. (2020). Understanding Labour Processes in Global Production Networks: A Case Study of the Football Industry in Pakistan. Globalization. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1708658
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pressman, S., & Summerfield, G. (2000). The Economic Contributions of Amartya Sen. Review of Political Economy, 12(1), 89–113.
Qizilbash, M. (2002). Development, Common Foes and Shared Values. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 464–480.
Radcliffe, S. (2015). Gender and Postcolonialism. In A. Coles, L. Gray, & J. Momsen (Eds.), The Handbook of Gender and Development (pp. 35–46). London: Routledge.
Sen, A. (1983). Development: Which Way Now? The Economic Journal, 93, 745–776.
Sen, A. (1987). Gender and Cooperative Conflicts. Working Paper 18. Helsinki, Finland: World Institute for Development Economics Research.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Wellbeing. In M. Nussbaum & A. K. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 30–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, S., & Smithson, J. (2007). Perspectives of Homeworkers and Their Partners on Working Flexibility and Gender Equity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 448–461.
Wapshott, R., & Mallett, O. (2012). The Spatial Implications of Homeworking: A Lefebvrian Approach to the Rewards and Challenges of Home-Based Work. Organization, 19(1), 63–79.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naz, F., Bögenhold, D. (2020). Unheard Voices: Globalization Stories from Invisible Margins. In: Unheard Voices. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54363-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54363-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54362-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54363-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)