What’s the background debate? What is this a contribution to? What are the major theoretical assumptions?
Debates about workplace as performance, or performative theories of work/labor. Offering a specification about some of the ways in which gender figures in the workplace. Also offering a conceptual intervention concerning how we are going to map and describe these kinds of specificities. A critique of other forms of this work of specifying, in which identity is not recognized as the outcome of a process of labor.
Is this a descriptive or a normative project? Are they sketching a theoretical deficit in existing accounts of what we are calling ‘capitalist flexibilization’? Or are they also going one step further and offering a normative critique of ‘capitalist flexibilization’? The former is an attempt to be tidier and more rigorous about the concepts of ‘flexibilization’ (our language) or ‘identity performance’ (descriptive). The latter is a critique of what those concepts name (normative).
There is a normative ambivalence here.
Can we unpack the contrast (p. 604) between women works as gendered workers, versus individualizing and flexibilized workers?
What is at stake in the theoretical move that would give no precedence to either term in the relation between “gendered self-identity” and “gendering of the labour of division” (p. 599)? How does this differ from other theoretical accounts? Do other theoretical accounts give theoretical precedence to one term of this relation? Relation between identity and economy—not giving precedence of one over the other.
What is at stake in the treatment of stress (p. 610) as a privileged example or a key site for analysis, inquiry, and critique?
What is the scope of the argument?
How is self-formation linked to earning?
No comments:
Post a Comment