Lillian Cicerchia

This article explores an under-examined theme, which is who or what is the working class and what is wrong with the situation that members of this class share. It argues that class divisions impose a unique harm for a diverse and interdependent group within capitalist societies both in spite and because of differences among group members. Class matters not just because it creates economic groups in which some are rich and others are poor, but because competition creates conditions that militate against solidarity, toward cleavage and conflict. Class is a constraint on collective self-determination and, therefore, a source of domination.

In recent years, there has been a wide-ranging debate about the neo-republican principle of non-domination. Neo-republicans argue that domination is a capacity for one to intentionally use arbitrary power to interfere in someone’s life. Critics of neo-republicanism argue that this definition of freedom as non-domination precludes a structural analysis of domination, which would explain and critique the ways in which societies produce structural domination unintentionally. The article focuses on capitalism’s labor process and its labor markets. It argues that critics are correct to think that the neo-republican principle of non-domination has an insufficient scope, but that an alternative account of structural domination should still support the neo-republican idea that agency must be involved. Otherwise, we might simply fail to explain the social processes that reproduce structural domination. What is needed is to explain how the labor process creates incentives for agents to intentionally produce structures that have unintended, yet dominating effects, and in turn, how the intentions of agents are conditioned by their social positions. Domination is thus agential and structural.

In this paper I argue that Nancy Fraser’s theory of social reproduction is misleading and that the process of exploitation is more central to women’s oppression than Fraser’s theory suggests. I argue that Fraser’s theory of women’s oppression is continuous with her theory of capitalism and political agency. I critique Fraser’s theory of capitalism at a structural level to clarify some of the ambiguity in her position about the difference between production and reproduction. I then compare Fraser’s view with a structural view of class to make my critique and extend it to her theoretical distinction between status and class.

In this paper I argue that Nancy Fraser’s theory of social reproduction is misleading and that the process of exploitation is more central to women’s oppression than Fraser’s theory suggests. I argue that Fraser’s theory of women’s oppression is continuous with her theory of capitalism and political agency. I critique Fraser’s theory of capitalism at a structural level to clarify some of the ambiguity in her position about the difference between production and reproduction. I then compare Fraser’s view with a structural view of class to make my critique and extend it to her theoretical distinction between status and class.