What if I told you there's no such thing as "productive" labor?

Gender inequality is a global issue identified in [the] United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5: “Achieve gender equality and empower women and girls” (Hirsu, et al. 2019, p. 1). Within the SDGs, there are certain targets, such as Target 5.4: “Value unpaid care and promote shared domestic responsibilities” (Leal Filho et al. 2023, p. 5). Therefore, the undervaluing of unpaid care work and underpaid care work (thereafter: reproductive labor) is a problem for sustainable development.

Globally, when compared to men and boys, women and girls hold a “triple role” of managing productive labor, reproductive labor, and community management (Moser, 1993). In neoclassical economics, productive labor is defined under capitalism as work that adds value to raw goods and produces a [capital] surplus for an employer (Smith, 1776 [1976]). This definition holds under communism as defined by Karl Marx (1996). Marx also put forth a definition for unproductive labor which is labor exchanged for revenue. (1996). Production and reproduction of labor is embedded within the Marxian definition of social reproduction, i.e., “Capitalist production therefore reproduces in the course of its own process the separation between labour-power and the conditions of labor.” (Harvey, 2018, p. 254)

However, work that is unpaid and necessary for the evolution of life, reproductive labor, is less explored. As adopted by feminist social reproduction theorists, reproductive labor came to be defined as household-level labor that is necessary for labor power of capitalist workers outside of the household (Vogel, 1983). Feminist social reproduction theory expands upon Marxist theories to frame unpaid domestic labor, primarily shouldered by women, as a main component of reproductive labor (Vogel,1983).

Furthermore, climate change exacerbates the “triple role” of women and girls (Alonso-Epelde, 2024). As ecological economists question mainstream economics’ omission of socioecological costs, so too do feminist economists trouble the absence of reproductive labor in mainstream economics (Folbre, 2001). A recent study by Oxfam International (Coffey et al., 2020) determined the intrinsic value of reproductive labor to be approximately $1.5 trillion in the US and $10.8 trillion globally. With a monetary value this high, why isn’t reproductive labor valued more in society? 

Marxist theory suggests:

As outlined above, Marxist thought provides a critique to mainstream economics by examining the inner workings of capitalist worker exploitation (Marx, 1996; Harvey, 2018). David Harvey (2018) makes compelling arguments for how Karl Marx broke down value, use-value, and exchange-value, i.e., “Socially Necessary Labor Time,” “Heterogeneous Material Quality and Quantities,” and “Homogenous Quantities” (p. 25), respectively. By questioning the previously held assumptions of classical economists including Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes (Bowden, 2020), Marxist theory challenged mainstream understandings and provided new ways of thinking about economics. My study builds upon a Marxist critique of traditional economics and is grounded in literature spanning four dimensions: Marxist feminist theory, social reproduction theory, socioeconomic policy intervention(s), and social-ecological economic impacts.

Marxist Feminist Theory suggests:

Firstly, Marxist feminist theory expands upon this foundation by adding an even more critical labor analysis, taking into factors like gender, race, and class (Morgan & Weinbaum, 2024). For example, this feminist critique of Marxism takes the literature further in that “Marxist feminism historicizes reproduction in relation to production to better understand women's exploitation and oppression in capitalism.” (Armstrong, 2020, p. 1) Rather than focusing on the definitions of production as laid out by Marx and Marxists, feminist theory examines the gendered relations with regards to the two main types of labor production (e.g., production and reproduction) (Hartmann & Markusen, 1980). This introduction of a relational component is critical to feminist theory.

Social Reproduction Theory suggests:

The literature continues to evolve—from a critique of neoclassical economics with Marxism to Marxist feminist theory which includes an intersectional feminist and critical perspective—with a narrowing in on reproductive labor by scholar activists like Silvia Federici (2021). A Marxist feminist herself, Federici began to identify and unpack the ways in which Marx’s critique is limited given the focal point of his arguments as being centered on the male wage earner of a household (2021, p. 81). In Patriarchy of the Wage: Notes on Marx, Gender, and Feminism (2021), she writes: “[...] he failed to unmask the very presuppositions of classic political economy.” (p. 81) Looking instead at the fulcrum of unpaid care work, i.e., reproductive labor, as the fulcrum of society laid the foundation for social reproduction theory.

Tithi Bhattacharya and other social reproduction theorists such as Lise Vogel and Nancy Fraser continued to shape social reproduction theory, moving beyond a reductive “add women and stir” (Harding, 1995) (or “add women’s work and stir” in the case of Marxism) perspective to grounding the work in feminist framing(s) of equality and equity (2017). They also started to contextualize systemic barriers and questioning previously established—and [still] accepted— understandings as alluded to under Marxian, Smithian, and Keynesian constructs.

Social-Ecological Economic impacts suggest:

From there, the fourth and final layer of the literature review has emerged: socialecological economic impacts. Led by ecofeminists (Mies & Shiva, 1993) and rooted in Indigenous feminist teachings (Todd, 2016) a consideration of one’s environs or a feminist political ecological (FPE) approach is necessary for a full analysis of a socioeconomic policy. Degrowth scholars such as Jason Hickel also recognize the importance of FPE in their advocacy for lower economic production and greater ecological restoration (2021).

Certain types of productive labor are destroying the planet. Extractive industries such as fracking and mining and consumption of goods reliant on global trade have resulted in “overshoot” (Meadows 2004). Economic development at any cost whether to the environment or people is unsustainable.

A key component of degrowth is productive labor. Labor became productive when it was morphed into a commercialized object under England’s nationalization legislation (Polanyi 1944). While labor and land are part of markets and markets make up the economy, neither land nor labor are commodities (Polanyi 1944). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, labor, like land, could not be separated from life. Labor and life remained connected until factory systems entered society (Polanyi 1944) and people became alienated from their labor (Gorz 1986). Without production, without industry, there is no productive labor.

Labor was identified by Arendt (1957) as, “the biological process of the human body” (p. 7). This holds true in the absence of the market (Polanyi 1944). However, once the market is introduced and surplus is produced, one’s labor becomes productive. Arguably, reproductive labor, or unpaid care work, is closer to both Arendt’s definition of labor and labor as situated within the market context by Polanyi (1944) for: “A market economy can exist only in a market society.” (p. 74) Therefore, without a surplus, without pay, labor is reproductive (see Table 1.1). There is a surplus from one’s reproductive labor in one’s home*; however, it is not for sale. Reproductive labor or unpaid “caring activities” are processes that exist in the social, ecological, and physical realms, yet remain invisible (Jochimsen and Knobloch 1997).

Prior to Polanyi and Arendt, Marx introduced reproduction in terms of societal organization as a reproduction process (1889) and resource allocation in support of production (1887). The literature has evolved to include a definition of reproductive labor which encompasses work that is unpaid, and which does not produce a surplus for capitalist market owners. This framing is limited, however, as it is situated in a “subject / object” division (Brennan 1997).

Table X | Identifying (re)productive labor(s)

Labor type	Labor location	Paid or unpaid?	Financial surplus?	Measured in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)?
Productive	Market	Paid	Yes	Yes
Reproductive	Home*	Unpaid	"No"	No

*I use the term “home” instead of “household” to account for those who might be living outside or experiencing houselessness. This also accounts for reproductive labor done outside of the household, yet also for free, i.e. in the context of baking or cooking a dish to share at a work event, tidying up the office, etc.

As laid out so far, there appears to be a distinction between "productive" and "reproductive" laboring. However, and I will outline this in my next entry (coming soon), all labor is reproductive; it's only certain types of that reproduction that become legitimized by the state.

Stay tuned—