Int J Polit Cult Soc (2014) 27:129–152
DOI 10.1007/s10767-013-9151-x
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality
and Political Economy”
Susie Jacobs & Christian Klesse
Published online: 20 December 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Introduction
Decades of neoliberal governance and the current economic crisis have resulted in
growing socioeconomic inequalities, increases in poverty, escalating prices for basic
consumer items (including food), an infringement of labour rights, deterioration of working conditions, land grabs, mass unemployment, and a reduction of welfare provisions in
many nation states. These developments impact on economies across the globe to differing
degrees. They have led to political unrest and resistance in many parts of the world,
including some of the economically worst off societies within the European Union.
The current situation also presents a challenge for social and political theory and
particularly for the “cultural turn” which has often celebrated “choice” within consumerist society and has thereby implicitly or explicitly supported market oriented perspectives. Our view is that critical work is needed attempting to link gender and sexuality
perspectives within contexts of socioeconomic crisis, growing class divisions and rapid
social change.
We consider gender and sexuality to be distinct yet closely connected categories. Beasley
(2005) for instance, writes of the “gender sexuality field”, which is comprised of several
subfields, including feminist studies, masculinity studies, and, as we would add, transgender
studies. Yet in many approaches the concepts appear as separate, with attempts to explain
gender inequalities often having nothing much to say about sexual forms of power and work
on sexualities having little to say about subordination of women, hierarchies among men,
and marginalisation of transgender people.
Much work on sexualities has emerged from predominantly culturalist frameworks which
tend to deflect from concerns with economy and wider geopolitical power relations. This
results—among others—in a common undertheorisation of class in sexuality studies (Binnie
2011; Taylor 2007). And work on gender from within political economy perspectives has
S. Jacobs (*) : C. Klesse (*)
Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manton Building,
Rosamund Street West, Manchester M15 6LL, UK
e-mail: S.Jacobs@mmu.ac.uk
e-mail: c.klesse@mmu.ac.uk
130
Jacobs and Klesse
sometimes struggled to account for the importance of desire and sexuality (Hennessy 2011).
In this respect, it has encountered similar fissures to other work linking the socioeconomic
and the cultural/emotional.
This introduction to the special issue on “Gender, sexuality and political economy”
explores such fissures in the light of historical developments within gender studies, materialist feminism and critical sexuality studies, especially queer theory. We focus particularly
on tensions between materialist feminisms and queer theory, because it is here that questions
of political economy and class are most explicitly addressed. Moreover, these debates have
shaped the editors’ own political and academic trajectories, respectively within a Marxist
feminist framework and within queer theory.
In the first brief section below, we reflect on the core concepts of “gender” and
“sexuality”. The second section discusses disjunctures between conceptualisations of
gender and sexuality on the level of social movement politics, while the third explores
the gap through discussion of influential theories of gender subordination (within
feminist work) and on sexuality (within queer theory). The fourth substantive section
looks at how the interplay between gender and sexuality has been framed within
intersectional perspectives. We also address some of the omissions within current
intersectionality studies in this section. The last sections focus on major
themes explored in the special issue: gendered household labour and family forms,
individualisation, “race”/ethnicity and nation, social class, and finally, social movements and resistance.
Gender, Sexuality
The term “gender” has had a strong currency in Anglophone academic and political writing
since the 1960s, when it successively replaced the term “sex roles” that was used (among
others) in sexology, clinical psychology and (functionalist) sociology (Connell 2009b). The
term was used both in sexology (by scholars and practitioners who worked with transsexual
people) to theorise divergences between assigned [biological] sex and gender role or gender
identity (cf., Brierly 2000) and by feminists who wished to highlight the cultural and
political nature of women’s oppression through focus on sexual difference (cf. Oakley
1972). Feminists have theorised gender as a set of power relations and explored their
pervasive articulation across the fields of politics, production, consumption, culture, intersubjectivity, emotionality, etc.
In many feminist theories of subsequent decades, the concept gender operated in
tandem with the term sex, designating a “cultural” addition—through constructions of
masculinity and femininity—to the biologically grounded ontological reality of sexed
bodies (Nicholson 1995). Feminists such as Simone de Beauvoir (1976) advanced
notions of gender as a process or becoming, indicating lack of fixedness. Assumptions
regarding the foundational role of “sex” (as a unique and clearly categorisable form of
embodiment) in theories of gender have been challenged in some postmodern gender
theories, such as Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of gender performativity. Similar arguments have also been advanced by feminists who deconstruct biological discourses on
sexual difference from within a critical science studies perspective (Fausto-Sterling
2000). Advocates of “corporeal feminism” nevertheless insisted on the significance of
the experience of the materiality of the sexed body for any comprehensive theory of
gender (Grosz 1994). Approaches displaying a social constructionist dimension have in
common that they highlight the cultural and historical contingency of gendered meanings and practices.
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
131
Like the concept of gender, “sexuality” has been a contested and unstable term in
social theory. And like gender, it relates to the body and has frequently been framed in
the arena of reproduction (Connell 2009b). Sexual identities and practices are embedded in wider social relations and have been implicated in kinship and family systems,
economic, social, and cultural formations, processes of moral, legal and medical
regulation, strategies of government and the creation of cultures of resistance (Weeks
1986). According to Foucault (1990), sexuality is a non-essentialist entity and effect of
discourses regulated by a “regime of power-pleasure-knowledge” (p. 10). Although a
very wide range of emotions, pleasures, and actions can be sexualised, hegemonic
notions of sexuality in the West have advanced gender-coded definitions (around
notions of other-sex and same-sex desire) which have crystallised into core categories
of “sexual orientation” such as “heterosexual” and “homosexual”—and, although much
more unstable and contested, “bisexual” (Sedgwick 1995). (See below for further
discussion.)
There are historical reasons for the disjuncture between work on gender and sexuality.
In the following sections, we explore the tension between gender and sexuality theories
both from the viewpoints of social movement histories and theoretical genealogies. These
dynamics are closely interconnected.
On the Disjuncture Between Gender and Sexuality
Theories of gender have been driven by critical analysis from within feminism and
in recent decades, also within masculinity studies and then transgender studies
(including transfeminism) (Connell 1987; Nestle et al. 2002). Feminist activists and
theorists with distinct theoretical leanings have explored power around sexuality.
The role of (hetero)sexuality in sustaining patriarchy, sexuality as a cornerstone
of discourses on femininity and masculinity, the normativity of gendered scripts
regarding sexual interaction, the double standard in moral discourse, the dominant
construction of notions of sexual pleasure (orgasm), objectification, pornography,
sexual violence, and reproductive freedom all were important items on the agenda
of feminist movements in North America, Europe and elsewhere from the 1960s
(Feminist Review 1987; Segal 1994).
Some strands within radical feminism posited sexuality as the key relation in the
constitution of hierarchical gender relations via the institutionalisation of heterosexuality.
“Sexuality is the social process through which social relations of gender are created,
organized, expressed, and directed, creating the social beings we know as women and
men, as their relations create society”, argues, for example, Catherine McKinnon (1989, p.
3). This line of analysis emphasised violence as a feature frequently defining women’s
experiences of sexuality (see also Brownmiller 1975; Dworkin 1981, 1988). Although not
all would agree on sexuality (or sexual violence) as the key defining issue, the focus on
violence has constituted a contribution taken up by a wide range of feminist and antihomophobic writers.
The critique of patriarchal gender relations at the heart of heterosexual sex and
relationships went, for some, hand in hand with the articulation of a distinctively feminist
ethics of sexuality which represented female eroticism (between women) as free of
domination and aggression (see English et al. 1987; Segal 1994). This vision advanced
a scheme of normativity that in many instances sustained demands for censorship or the
contestation of the presence of certain sexualities in public space, including feminist
spaces. Not all activists were happy with this development and feminists began to engage
132
Jacobs and Klesse
in a battle around clashing sexual political agendas. In the following section, we briefly
examine the historical development of what became known as the “sex wars” and which
have had continued repercussions.
“Sex Wars” of the 1980s
Some radical feminists and advocates of “political lesbianism” who organised themselves in
campaigns against pornography and violence against women, began to cast certain erotic
phenomena, including heterosexuality, bisexuality, penetrative sex, BDSM, pornography,
butch/femme culture, and transgender identification as a problem per se (Jeffreys 1994;
Raymond 1980; Only Women Press Collective 1981).
Other libertarian and self-defined “sex radical” women contested these politics using an
anticensorship argument (Rodgerson and Wilson 1991; Vance 1992). They complained
that feminist analysis had been guilty of stereotypical misrepresentations: gay male
sexuality was depicted as objectifying and promiscuous, lesbian sexuality as essentially
intimate and spiritual and bisexuality as a cop-out. They also objected to the characterisation of BDSM as violent and destructive. They rejected the demonisation of transgender
identities (Riddle 1998) and were frustrated that some feminists had entered alliances with
the New Right in campaigns countering pornography and especially, violent porn (Califia
2000). In general, this grouping contested the prioritisation of gender over sexuality in the
analysis of power.
Other strands within feminism have continued this critique, stressing the need to foreground the problem of violence against women, to challenge the objectification of women’s
bodies in dominant representations within most porn genres, the economic exploitation and
harmful working conditions of many women in the porn industry, and more recently the
“leakage” of porn culture into popular culture (Long 2012; Russell 1993).
In the 1980s, conflicts around feminist sexual ethics and theory escalated into the so
called “sex wars” in feminism and lesbian feminism (Hunter and Duggan 1995; Vance
1992). These had a lasting impact on feminist debates concerning sexuality; they also
gave rise to a radical theory of sexuality which by many is seen as a precursor to queer
theory (Smyth 1992). Aside from the specific debates, tensions and actors, the theoretical point being made at the time was that sexuality should not be seen as a simple
function of gender relations. Overall, the strongly polarising dynamics of the controversies of the time nonetheless reinforced a disjuncture between gender and sexuality
analyses.
In the following section, we briefly explore some positions concerning the analytical
separation of—or priority to— “sexuality” and “gender” within theorisations. We first discuss
theorists who in discussing sexuality and gender, prioritise sexuality in theorisations. We then
note others who argue for priority of gender in analysis before noting some wishes for
“reconciliation” or linking of gender and sexuality theorisations.
Debates and Positions on the Disjuncture
Theorists who wrote within, or who were precursors of queer theory often held that sexuality
should be separately theorised from gender. Gayle Rubin in “Thinking Sex” (1992), for
instance, wrote:
I want to challenge the assumption that feminism is or should be the privileged site of
a theory of sexuality. Feminism is the theory of gender oppression. To automatically
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
133
assume that this makes it the theory of sexual oppression is to fail to distinguish
between gender, on the one hand, and erotic desire, on the other (p.307).
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick took up this point in The Epistemology of the Closet (1990), sometimes
seen as a core text of early queer theory. Despite highlighting an inextricable interconnection
between sexuality and gender, she argues “[t]he study of sexuality is not coextensive with the study
of gender” (p. 27) and, correspondingly, that “antihomophobic inquiry is not coextensive with
feminist inquiry” (p. 27) [italics in original]. Similarly, Abelove et al. in the introduction to an
influential lesbian and gay studies reader state: “Lesbian/gay studies does for sex and sexuality
approximately what women’s studies does for gender” (Abelove et al. 1993. p. xv).
In contrast, other feminist authors argue for the priority of gender within studies linking
gender subordination and sexuality. While queer theory embarked on the elaboration of critical
theories on sexuality, many feminists have upheld the reservation that queer theory fails to
provide an adequate theorisation of the common structural subordination of women across the
globe (McLaughlin et al. 2006). Sexuality and gender may also have different “weightings” in
analysis of socioeconomic divisions and in framing stratification (see below).
Stevi Jackson (2006), for example, argues that sexuality is constituted through the logic of
gender. For Jackson, “sexuality and gender differ because the former is a sphere or realm of social
life while the latter is a fundamental social division” (p. 42). Sexuality is not seen here as a
fundamental social division. Rather, it is a “sphere of life”, not necessarily displaying the systemic
and stratifying dynamics which are characteristic of social divisions. The current gender order,
hinges upon heterosexuality and a clear division between homosexuality and heterosexuality
(Jackson 2006, p. 43). For Jackson, gender has priority and the definitions homosexual, bisexual
and heterosexual are all derived from gender definitions. Sexuality unfolds its importance
primarily on the grounds that heterosexuality is more than just a question of desire and
institutionalises a gender order which determines and sanctions a gendered division of labour.
“As an institution, heterosexuality is, by definition, a gender relationship, (…) ordering not only
sexual life but also domestic and extra-domestic divisions of labour and resources” (p. 44). In
brief, sexuality is seen as related to the sphere of labour and political economy only through its
dependence on gender as a social division. This means that the relationship between gender and
heterosexuality is of a different order from that between gender and sexuality.
A similar view comes from Budhiraja et al. (2010), in context of Southern activist work.
Human rights abuses against lesbians and bisexual women, for instance, are seen as shaped
by gender prescription and standards as well as through sexual identity (p. 137), and these
affect men and women (including gay, lesbian, and bisexual people) differently. Abuses of
women (for instance, “corrective” rape; “honour” killings, forced marriages and childbirth)
are, they argue, shaped by gender prescriptions—often used to justify cultural continuity (p.
137); women who have sex with women therefore operate within a context framed by gender
inequality as well as nonconforming sexuality. Therefore the authors advocate that political
strategies must dismantle gender inequity rather than targetting sexual practices only. “It is
time for the sexual rights discourse to borrow strategies from one of its historical foundations
and [to] add a category to its banner: gender justice” (p. 143).
Some writers (including some cited above), however, feel that the separation of gender and
sexuality in analysis might be a temporary measure. Rubin did not see the stance of analytical
separation as a turn away from feminism (see Butler 1994), but as a re-emphasis. “In the long
run, feminism’s critique of gender hierarchy must be incorporated in a radical theory of sex, and
the critique of sexual oppression should enrich feminism” (Rubin 1992, p. 309).
Butler (1994) challenged the proposal for a division of labour based on the assumption of
different objects of study (gender or sexuality), arguing that this would deny the important
134
Jacobs and Klesse
feminist contribution to lesbian and gay studies. Moreover, she suggests that this point of view
implies that “the feminist contributions to thinking sexuality culminate in the supersession of
feminism by lesbian and gay studies” (p.8). Here, Butler affirms both queer theory and feminism.
This debate also flows over into one between queer theorists and feminists who emphasise more structural and general constraints in (most) women’s lives, echoing earlier “sex
wars”. Jackson argues that while queer theory has invested in unsettling the power relations
around the hetero/homo dichotomy, most authors in the field fail to show concern with what
happens within heterosexual relations and to challenge the everyday practices and institutional structures which ground a social order which is simultaneously gendered and
heterosexualised (Jackson 2006, p. 39).
Thus, a number of voices call for a constructive merger of feminist and critical (queer) sexuality
studies (McLaughlin et al. 2006, Jagose 2009). Yet practical fusion of feminist and (queer) critical
sexuality perspectives is also obstructed by political differences and differences in the theoretical
genealogies of the respective intellectual traditions. Structuralist and economic perspectives have
been much more prominent in feminist theory as compared with critical sexuality studies. Among
others, this is a result of the stronger and longer-lasting impact of structuralist (including Marxian)
theories in feminist work. For example, many strands of feminism (including the work of radical
feminists, anticolonial or “Third World” feminists and materialist feminists) have highlighted
global—including socioeconomic inequalities—affecting women as well as men (Sen and Grown
1987). Since the early 1990s, feminists of the global South have taken up systematic and widespread
violence against women as a key and neglected element of the wider subordination of women (see
Ferree and Tripp 2006; Keck and Sikkinck 1998; UN Women 2013).
There is also a much stronger legacy of socialist and Marxist thought in feminism than in
lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer politics. Socialist feminism was a very strong current in
international feminist politics from the 1960s to the 1980s (Barrett 1980; Sargant 1981). The
affiliation of lesbian and gay struggles with leftwing politics on the other hand was quite shortlived and in many countries it was largely confined to the brief period of early gay liberationist
politics (Hennessy 2000; Power 1995; Robinson 2007). Socialist perspectives were also less
prominent in (post[gay]liberationist) bisexual and transgender politics.
In the following, we briefly explore the different roles of structural economic perspectives
in the history of gender and sexuality theories.
Gender Theories, Sexuality Theories and Structuralist Critiques
This section discusses key concepts within feminism and queer theory: respectively, patriarchy
(or gender subordination) and heteronormativity. It focuses particularly on the role of the
economic and political economy within the respective formulations. We also refer to the related
and well known debate on “recognition” and “redistribution” as foci of social struggles.
Patriarchy and Gender Subordination in Feminist Theories
Feminist movements have a diverse history. This is reflected in different—and sometimes
incommensurate—theories on the origins of gender and its role in the creation and reproduction of social inequalities. There have also been differences in use of terms. Yet a
structuralist critique of gender referring to the role of institutions and structural, persistent
social causation in the historical and continued subordination of women, has been incorporated by many varieties of feminism.
Early “radical feminist” theories assumed systemic and structural male domination of
women and saw patriarchy as a primary social division. This was seen as stemming in part
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
135
from fundamental differences between the sexes (see Firestone 1979), although they also
pointed to other aspects of oppression, for instance enacted through education and cultural
beliefs, and particularly through systematic violence against women. Millett in Sexual Politics
(1970) saw patriarchy as an institution through which all women are controlled by all men. This
power is all pervasive, therefore appearing natural. Male supremacy derives from appropriation
of women’s bodies, from compulsory heterosexuality and ultimately, from male violence
(Brownmiller 1975; Rich 1986).
Critiques of the term patriarchy developed quickly, however. Social anthropologists argued
that the latter was too static and not concerned enough with social and cultural variations (e.g.
Whitehead 2006 [1979]). The term “gender subordination” was seen as preferable and more
flexible. Writers such as Juliet Mitchell (1971), presented an early attempt from a Marxist
psychoanalytic perspective to systematise “patriarchy”, arguing that it consisted of the structures of production, biological reproduction, sexuality and socialisation. Both capitalism and
operations of patriarchal practices through the unconscious were of importance. Walby’s (1990)
formulation (see also Walby 2009) posits six structures of domination including paid employment, domestic labour, the state and the law, cultural institutions, sexuality and violence: it is of
note that violence is seen as separate structural source of domination.
Marxist feminists who have used the term patriarchy have tended to focus not only on
class divisions among women (thereby refuting the idea of women as a class in industrialised
societies) but on the mediation of women’s oppression by their position within relations of
production (Beechey 1979). The latter implied a close focus on the gendered division of
labour in both the spheres of domestic work and wage labour (Alexander 1976; Himmelweit
1995; see later section).
In most elaborations, feminist socialism/Marxism has posited gender (with some inclusion
of sexuality) as a separate sphere of oppression which coexists with, but is not reducible
entirely to class and the economic. Thus Hartmann posited a “dual systems theory”, giving
capitalism and patriarchy equal weight (Hartmann 1979; see also Mies 1986).
Another criticism concerned the overgenerality of patriarchy. From the 1980s, black and
ethnic minority women critiqued the idea as ethnocentric. For instance, for many women, state
and more general racism might be an equivalent or greater source of oppression than male
household domination (Amos and Parmar 1984; hooks 1982; Mirza 1997; Ramazanoglu 1989);
this discussion was later taken up in debates over intersectionality (see later section). Feminists
of the global South and decolonial or postcolonial feminists posited parallel critiques, highlighting the significance of geopolitical and economic inequalities and outlining theories of gender
which frequently fuse anticolonial, antiracist, and anticapitalist agendas (Alexander 2005;
Alexander and Mohanty 1997; Basu 2010; Mohanty 2003; Sen and Grown 1987).
Postmodern/poststructuralist feminists have challenged the idea of a universal patriarchal
order (Fraser and Nicholson 1990). Some wishing to emphasise variability, avoid the use of
the term “patriarchy”, as in the term female subordination.
Raewyn Connell’s theory of gender relations similarly attempts to avoid shortcomings of
dualism, which may fail to capture the complexity of gendered experiences and realities while
also adhering to a concept of structure. Her relational framework posits that masculinity and
femininity are not homogeneous categories and that gender positions are often fragmented. This
allows for the perception of diversity—that is, multiple masculinities and femininities—and
calls for the theorisation of the relationship between them. Connell’s work on masculinity in
particular stressed relationality as one element within a wider comprehensive gender studies
framework (Connell 2005). This also encompasses transgender identities and practices of
transitioning (Connell 2009b). For instance, she employs the useful term “gender regime”
(Connell 1987, 2009b), referring to the configuration of gender relations in particular
136
Jacobs and Klesse
institutions or settings such as workplaces. Relatedly, the term gender order refers to the wider
arrangement or patterning of gender relations within societies (Connell 2005, p. 4).
Connell stresses that despite diversity within cultural constructions, gender relations are
patterned and durable and are therefore best understood as a social structure. Thus, gendered
positions may be complex and shifting but also entail social and cultural hierarchies, both
between men and women and within gendered categories (Beasley 2008; Connell and
Messerschmidt 2005). At the same time, they are shaped by “internal complexity and contradiction”, due to the implication of multiple (“intersecting”) social structures. (See discussion of
intersectionality below.)
Feminist work in general, has come to place greater emphasis on agency, diversity and
contingency and has historicised the concept of patriarchy. Tinsman (2002) writes that patriarchy is not a “master grid” but “a variety of arrangements derived from broad principles (which
can change) legitimating men’s authority over women” (pp. 12–13). For Hennessy (2000, p.
23), contemporary, refined feminist theories of patriarchy see it as “a historically variant form of
social organization” which structures social life “such that more social resources and value
accrue to men as a group at the expense of women as a group”. Despite their malleability,
patriarchal gender orders have shaped most socioeconomic formations and have certainly been
fundamental to capitalism’s exploitative relations (p. 27).
Overall, structuralist and economic perspectives present a variable but substantial legacy
across different currents of feminist activism and theory.
Heteronormativity as a Core Concept in Queer Theory
In contrast to the materialist feminist tradition, sexuality studies have not been particularly
attentive to questions of political economy. Several social constructionist histories (most of
which were published in the late 1970s and 1980s) which analyse the genesis of nonheterosexual subcultures in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (among others) from the
point of changes in the productive/reproductive nexus, are an exception (e.g. Adam 1998;
Weeks 1990; D’Emilio 1983; Matthaei 2008). More recently, a small number of scholars
working in critical sexuality studies have emphasised the need to foreground class and
political economy (e.g. Binnie 2004; Floyd 2009; Hennessy 2000).
From the 1990s, queer theory was established as an influential paradigm within sexuality
studies. In the USA, queer studies originated within the Humanities and has been strongly
influenced by French poststructuralist theories. Since early queer theory was primarily preoccupied with questions of identity and the regulation of desire, class perspectives and questions
of political economy moved even further from focus (Hennessy 2000; Kirsch 2000). Early
queer theory presented heteronormatvity as one of the core concepts for theorising oppression
and resistance in the field of sexuality, often without engaging with questions of class stratification and political economy (see Klesse 2007). Berlant and Warner (1998, p. 548n) define
heteronormativity as “institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that
make heterosexuality seem not only as coherent (…) but also privileged”. Heteronormativity
thus stands for a set of power dynamics which normalise and naturalise heterosexuality. This
definition (like many others) focuses on discursive production and normative regulation, which
reveals the influence of a largely Foucauldian model of power. Michel Foucault’s work on
power/knowledge has been enormously influential for the formation of queer theory (Jagose
1996). Mostly represented through the theoretical language of discourse, heteronormativity is
assumed to be organised in a netlike fashion, spreading across various terrains, including
interpersonal interaction, moral sentiment, cultural values, social and institutional practices,
modes of citizenship, legal frameworks, state politics and economic formations.
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
137
Despite its broad applicability, there are a range of problems in the conceptualisation of
power through heteronormativity. As the term suggests, its concern is first of all with
“normativity”. Yet certain forms of power, such as physical and military force (violence),
deprivation and exploitation (of which some are quite relevant for the analysis of power within
capitalism) are not easily captured within its basic premises (see Cooper 1995; Klesse 2007).
This has also implications for the theorisation of forms of resistance and explains the prominence of a rather vague concept of “transgression” as a model for opposition (subversion) in
queer theory (Wilson 1993).
Queer theory has diversified significantly since the 1990s and expanded its declared areas
of interest (Eng et al. 2005). Over recent years, there has been a growth of publications from
within queer studies that engage with political economy from an anticapitalist perspective,
often driven by a concern with the sexual politics of neoliberalism (Binnie 2004; Duggan
2003; Eng 2010; Ferguson 2004; Floyd 2009; Manalansan 2005).
Moreover, other work from antihomophobic viewpoints is not undertaken within the
scope of queer theory (Cohen 2001; Hennessy 2000; Richardson 2004).These developments
notwithstanding, experts in the field continue to note the absence of a persistent and
systematic focus on class in contemporary sexuality studies (Binnie 2011). It is also
noteworthy that many of the studies which look at class use a framework informed by
Bourdieu (1984, 1986) and present discussions of class which look primarily at the cultural
reproduction of social class identities (Skeggs 1997; Taylor 2007; compare Anthias 2005),
rather than more structural perspectives on class (Byrne 2005; Crompton 2008; Edgell 1993;
Harvey 2011; Wright 2005).
It is against this backdrop, that materialist and socialist feminists read the growing
influence of queer studies primarily as a symptom of the cultural turn.
Jackson, for example, argues that the adaptation of a queer analysis implies moving “away
from gender as a social division towards understanding gender as cultural distinction” (Jackson,
quoted by McLaughlin et al. 2006, p.12). The editors of a book calling for an exchange between
(materialist) feminism and queer theory deplore that queer theory and feminism are frequently
pitched against each other along a set of allegedly mutually incommensurable oppositions. In
this view, feminism is said to embrace materiality, the economic, the collective and the global,
whereas queer studies is conflated with the discursive, the micro-political, individualism and the
cultural (McLaughlin et al. 2006, pp. 3–4).
“Recognition” and “Redistribution”
Related to this is the debate on “recognition” and redistribution. Much has been written
about Butler’s (1997) critique and Fraser’s (1997b) response and there is no need to rehearse
these arguments here in any detail. We cite this briefly here, as the debate points towards
controversies with regard to the relative significance of gender and sexuality within processes of social structuration and economic stratification.
Fraser (1997a) distinguishes between struggles for recognition and struggles for redistribution in
an attempt to conceptualise and reconcile social movement politics around collective identities with
the more traditional concerns of class-based politics with the redistribution of wealth and class
inequalities. She argues that some movements operate on the level of (economic) distribution, while
others are rooted in (cultural) misrecognition. Fraser argues that certain, but not all, collective
identities (other than class) affect injustices on both levels. Whereas she sees gender and race as
“bivalent categories” which encompass both recognition and distribution, the oppression of “despised sexualities” (such as, for example, lesbians and gay men) operates primarily in the cultural
field, rather than through economic disenfranchisement and subordination (Fraser 1997a).
138
Jacobs and Klesse
Critics have challenged this classification and argued instead that oppression on the grounds
of sexuality can be rooted both in cultural processes and the economic structure. In the debate
between Butler and Fraser, Butler (1997, p. 270) for instance, takes issue with Fraser’s
designation of queer struggles as “merely cultural”. This claim, Butler argues, implies an active
forgetting of much of the achievements of materialist and Marxist feminism of the 1970s and
1980s, which “sought to establish the sphere of sexual reproduction as part of the material
conditions of life, a proper constitutive feature of political economy” (p. 272). Although the
main protagonists take different positions on the issue, this controversy points towards the
implication of gender and sexuality in the economic relations of neoliberal capitalism. We agree
with other commentators that more work needs to be done to determine the role of gender and
sexuality in capitalist accumulation and regulation (cf. Bedford and Rai 2010).
This section has indicated that there exist, and sometimes persist, differences in theoretical
positions, topics of study, and social movement claims. Our discussion indicates that boundaries
between fields of study can at times be fluid. This is part of an endeavour to explore how gender
and sexuality-related practices connect and are constitutive of one another. They also unfold in
relation to economic processes of class differentiation.
The concept of intersectionality is relevant at this point.
Intersectionality, Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy
Debates on intersectionality have their roots in conversations among black and other racialised
women in the late 1970s and 1980s who strove for the articulation of an adequate political
strategy to challenge what the Combahee River Collective (1979) called the “simultaneity of
interlocking oppressions”. This was elaborated during subsequent decades (see for example
hooks 1982; Collins 1990; Mohanty 1988). Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1992, p. 20) argue that
early debates on intersectionality tended primarily to look at the interplay of oppressive
practices around gender, race and class (Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1983, 1992; Davis 1982).
The coinage of the term is attributed to the critical legal studies scholar Kimberley
Crenshaw (1989, 1994), who presented a black feminist critique of unidimensional legal
anti discrimination frameworks. Debates on intersectionality within feminism have diversified, the concept has travelled and been applied to a wide terrain of subject matters,
informing research agendas, theories and methodological approaches and political strategies
(Brah and Phoenix 2004; Cho et al. 2013; Grabham et al. 2009; Lutz et al. 2011). Individual
approaches differ significantly and there is no homogenous approach to intersectionality. For
example, McCall (2001) distinguishes approaches that highlight “intercategorical complexity” from those that are primarily concerned with “intracategorical complexity”.
Controversies exist regarding how to account for intersectionality in detail. For example,
Crenshaw (1994) uses the metaphor of a “crossroads”; Yuval-Davis (2006, 2011) speaks of
different “axes” or “social divisions” and Davina Cooper (1995, 2004) of “organizing principles” or “social dynamics”. There has also been a debate which and how many social divisions
(or forms of oppression) are relevant for social analysis. Yuval-Davis (2011, p. 160) rightly
comments that the questions of how many social divisons may matter in a certain context,
which ones are salient, and for whom, cannot be decided in advance. Ultimately, this is the
outcome of both political struggles as well as of analytical processes. Intersectionality may best
be understood as an heuristic device, a sensitising concept or a “corrective methodology”,
which designates a field that is necessarily ambiguous and incomplete (Anthias 1998; Davis
2008; Yekani et al. 2011).
Intersectionality approaches have in practice tended to focus on questions of ethnicity/
“race” and gender. This has sometimes meant that sexuality (among others) as an identity
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
139
and division has been marginalised. This absence is striking, since sexuality was treated as an
important social division in the contributions of lesbian feminist antiracist theorists and activists
(and their allies) (see Anzaldúa 1987; Lorde 1988). “Intersectional” perspectives are also a core
feature of contemporary queer-of-colour critiques (e.g. Ferguson 2004; Haritaworn 2007;
Johnson and Henderson 2006). This cannot be said of sexuality studies in general, as these
have barely started to engage with this debate (see Taylor et al. 2011) and do not usually show a
great deal of concern for social divisions beyond sexuality—mirrored, too, in the widespread
silence on race, class or age (see Binnie 2011; Kuntsman and Miyake 2008; Plummer 2010).
As the debate on interesectionality has unfolded, the original focus on multiple oppressions
and the conditions of inequality slowly eroded and has given way to an ever expanding
preoccupation with identity categories. The political texts of the early contributors to the debate
are now rarely read and cited, allowing for an accelerating individualisation within academic
approaches to intersectionality (Cho et al. 2013; Erel et al. 2011). This implied moves away
from questions of class and political economy and marginalisation of class analyses.
Linking this topic with earlier discussions, if we frame the question of relative “weight” of the
cultural and economic (as in the redistribution/recognition debate) through the lens of
intersectionality, the question presents itself as one of how we understand the respective roles of
gender and sexuality in processes of stratification. Yuval-Davis (2011) argues that the study of global
(intersectional) processes of stratification would be more promising than a binary opposition
between recognition and redistribution. Yet the fact that social class is a relatively neglected subject
in work on intersectionality (Anthias 2001; 2005, McCall 2005; Skeggs 2004; Taylor 2009), is not
conducive to attempts to redirect the focus to questions of stratification and political economy.
Our view is that the debates on intersectionality will be able best to enrich our understanding of
questions relating to gender, sexuality and political economy to the extent that they reconcern
themselves with class and stratification (Yuval-Davis 2011; see Anthias 2001 and in this volume).
The Special Issue
The special issue is based on a workshop “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”, which
took place 24–25 May 2011 at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. We organised this
workshop to create a space to bring work on gender and sexuality in dialogue. The workshop,
which was sponsored by MMU’s Institute of Humanities and Social Science Research,
explored possible complementarities and overlaps (or else, contradictions or incompatibilities) between approaches within feminism, gender studies, transgender studies, lesbian, gay,
bisexual and queer studies, with the aim of strengthening our understanding of the current
conditions for collaborative agency and coalitional struggles and for more egalitarian social
change(s). Contributions addressed questions linked to gendered and sexual positionings and
gendered labour in the context of economic crisis and growing social class divisions in
different locations. They also explored the construction of gendered and sexual subjectivities
and politics in the context of specific welfare, migration and consumption regimes in a range
of geographical settings. Other discussions included links between economic factors (for
example poverty, deregulation, neoliberal programmes) and intimate and sexual practices and
shifting identities.
We are pleased now to be able to present some of the research contributions which were first
presented at this workshop. The papers chosen for this special issue include keynote presentations from the workshop, a selection of papers presented and some specially commissioned
work. The special issue has been designed to reinforce the “gendering” and “queering” of
debates on political economy and to infuse work on gender and sexuality with class and
economic perspectives.
140
Jacobs and Klesse
The contributions address a number of questions, more than can be fully address here.
Several are addressed below.
Main Themes Discussed
The articles contained in this special issue cover a wide range of themes of relevance to gender,
sexuality and political economy. In this section, we highlight those that are discussed across
many or most contributions, and which are of greatest salience to bridging discursive and
material divides between different analyses. The themes discussed are: labour within households; individualisation; ethnicity, “race” and nationalism; social class, and social movements.
Labour Within Households; Family Forms
Labour within households—mainly although exclusively that of women—is important in
understanding the workings of socioeconomic systems, including capitalism. This is, of course,
also key to analysis of gender systems (Connell 2009a; Hochschild and Machung 2012; Scott
et al. 2006). Closely linked with the topic of household labour is that of family forms within
capitalism and other economic systems: both encompass gender relations as well as sexual (and
sexualised) relations. These themes are taken up by several articles within this journal issue.
Household labour has usually been naturalised and so seen as not in need of analysis (see,
e.g. Engels 1972). Initially the question of domestic labour was taken up by Marxist
feminists (Gardiner 1975; Himmelweit and Mohun 1977), discussing how this supported
capitalist systems, reproducing workers on a daily basis: the debate here centred around
whether this labour was “productive” in the sense of creating surplus value or otherwise.
This discussion moved into wider feminist contributions to the nature of housework—that is
outlining its scope, the “discovery” of unpaid labour; the long hours worked by women,
types of work undertaken and its social and economic necessity, despite the continued lack
of recognition (e.g. Beechey 1987; Oakley 1985; Himmelweit 1995; Gutiérrez Rodriguez
this volume).
With impetus from feminists working in the fields of anthropology and development studies,
this strand of debate broadened, pointing out the gender-biased nature of many official statistics,
which usually ignored women’s work within homes and on farms (e.g. Nelson 1981; DixonMueller 1985; Benería 1992; Elson 2002; Benería et al. 2003); related work discussed the
nature of internal workings and dynamics of households (e.g. Folbre 1986; Morris 1990; Sen
1990; Bergeron 2010). Still other work extended these insights to the world of “informal”
(noncontractual) work, in which women play a large part (Chen et al. 2004; Scott 1994).
One of the (relative) successes of feminist writing and agitation has been some official
recognition—for instance, by the International Labour Office (International Labour Office
ILO 2013a, 2013b)—of the need to measure women’s real and hidden economic contributions, which form one of the underpinnings of gender subordination.
More recently, this discussion has encompassed other forms of “domestic” work including
caring labour, noting its typical gender-coding. It has also encompassed the transnational nature
of some of these forms of labour, with globalisation and increased migration (Ehrenreich and
Hochschild 2003; Phizacklea and Wolkowitz 1995). Other pathbreaking feminist work, for
example by Glucksmann (1995, 2005) argues that the terms of reference of work should be
shifted to the total social organisation of labour (TSOL). This work as a body moves in
somewhat different directions, but serves to underline the gendered nature of such work as
well as the need for unpaid and caring labour as a support to other types of economic
activity—typically paid, formalised and with higher status.
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
141
Closely linked with the question of the necessity for, and gendered nature of, much “household” labour is that of family forms in capitalism and other economic systems. Functionalist work
in sociology (e.g. Parsons and Bales 1956; Goode 1970) asserted that the nuclear family, usually
conceptualised as a male breadwinner, a wife with responsibility mainly in the home and
containing requisite number of offspring, was a good or functional “fit” with modernity and that
extended family forms would decline with modernisation. The fit that was seen as appropriate
included the sex role division. This was in fact not a widespread form of family life in most
societies, outside Western societies in the 1950s-1970s (Barrett and McIntosh 1982; Therborn
2004). In any case, with changes in late capitalism or postmodernity the nuclear family has
become much less typical. Socioeconomic changes include the mass entry of women into paid
labour forces, either on part-time or full-time bases; rising rates of divorce and separation;
growing numbers of people (of various sexes) living together outside marriage and growth in
numbers of children born outside legalised marriage relations in the West (Kiernan 2007; Scott
et al. 2006). The exponential growth in lone or female-headed households in various parts of the
world is also of note (Chant 1997; Therborn 2004). Framing—or perhaps, underpinning—these
changes are changes in flows, forms of and regulation of capital internationally (Harvey 2011),
with deindustrialisation in the old industrial areas of the West, the growth of Newly Industrialising
Countries (NICS) from 1960s; then China, and now Brazil, India and Viet Nam. These economic
developments have been accompanied by policy loosening labour regulation and contracts,
undermining job security and unsettling previously “male” forms of labour—skilled manual
labour and longterm jobs (Standing 1989; Wilson 1996; Elson 2002).
The loosening of family forms has occurred in tandem with growth of neoliberal forms of
capitalism and weakens previous assertions about the necessity of particular family forms for
capitalism (Floyd 2009). Or, it could be said that although “capitalism” (or agents within capitalist
systems) can make use of particular family forms such as the nuclear family, capitalism has also
proven flexible and adaptable. Apparently different family forms—including lesbigay, poly,
female-headed households, lone person households—have potential to meet needs for labour
within capitalist systems. We therefore argue that capitalism is not intrinsically linked to particular
family and household forms, although capitalist enterprises do have “needs” for labour and
preferably, well socialised, healthy bodies.
Within this volume, four articles take up the issue of gendered and sexualised household
labour, and two discuss family/household formations. Gutiérrez Rodríguez discusses the
feminisation of housework within a feminist and queer analysis which also takes into
account the coloniality of contemporary labour and migration regimes. Klesse discusses
potential tensions over household labour within polyamory households, and reflects on class
dynamics which underpin polyamorous family and household formation. He notes that
polyamory is a relatively “new” form of life (at least, as intentional community).
However, it does not necessarily disrupt capitalist relations as such. Gutiérrez and Klesse
both argue that stereotypical gendered divisions of labour persist within nonheterosexual
households. Portocarrero discusses care work as part of women’s traditional identities: this
extends beyond but also encompasses household labour, including childcare, housework and
elder care. Jacobs notes how “the domestic” extends to the agricultural sphere in some
agrarian socioeconomic settings. Women’s work is a crucial underpinning of smallholder
farming, and it is difficult to disentangle farm, housework, gender, and sexuality within this
formation, which exists both in noncapitalist and capitalist systems. The concept total social
organisation of labour (Glucksmann 2005) is likely to assist future analyses of such
systems.
Feminist materialist analyses have thus explored other aspects of economic life relevant to (if
sometimes complicating) political economy and class analysis. These include (as above) the
142
Jacobs and Klesse
role of unpaid labour in households, within agriculture, in the informal sector and in the TSOL.
It also highlights the continued gender coding of such labour. These emphases are relevant as
well to analyses of heterosexuality/heteronormativity.
Individualisation, Capitalism and Sexuality
Individualisation of identities—with effects particularly for sexual identities—is an underlying theme in a number of contributions. Work from the time of Giddens’ (1992) contribution has asserted the increased individualisation of forms of association and of identity,
with effects for family and sexual relations.
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s (2002) analysis is complex, and rests on the assumption of
erosion of class identity through widespread employment and buffering of risks through the
welfare state. Individualisation stands for a wide-ranging cultural process of erosion and
evolution which has destabilising effects on the family, marriage, parenting and communities
as well as on labour (2002, p. 31). Individualisation also helps to explain the rise of social
movements, posited as replacing class politics.
Individualisation of identity has also been linked to globalisation of tastes and identities,
perceived and marketed as constructed particularly through consumption practices (Featherstone
2007). These processes are underpinned and made possible by the spread of manufacturing to
“new” global areas, by weakening of labour movements and accompanying weakening of states
and state provision for welfare, subsidies or for industry (Harvey 2007; Sklair 2002). Hennessy
(2000) notes capitalism’s prescription of autonomous, self-sufficient individuality as important in
framing new identities “suitable” for consumer society. This affects worldviews and identities,
including sexual and gender identities, which often become more individualised. Images of
women and women’s bodies have been key within advertising and marketing. Lesbigay identities,
too, have been drawn into commoditisation circuits (see Hennessy 1995). The increased visibility
of LGBT culture in the consumer sphere is often read mistakenly as an indicator of the necessarily
“homophiliac” tendencies of capitalism (Binnie, this volume).
Individualisation is discussed in different ways and settings within this volume. For
Jacobs, this is of relevance within policies of land privatisation, which in turn are often
linked with more secure rights for women (Jacobs 2004). However, privatisation of property
holds pitfalls, since many poor women and men are likely to lose any land gained,
particularly when this has to be used as collateral against loans (Fortin 2005). For
Portocarrero Lacayo, the individualisation implied in sexual empowerment and knowledge,
is a trend that potentially orients women away from community solidarity as well as
providing benefits for them as individual actors. Binnie and Klesse both note that class
analyses have been relatively rare in discussions of LGBTQ communities, since
theorisations and policy discussions seen as of relevance, have often been framed at the
microlevel and in terms of sexual choice, necessarily operating at individual level. Although
not taking up this topic explicitly, Hoang hints at the work choices made at individual level
by the bar girls who form a backdrop to the activities of businessmen in sexualised settings.
“Race”/Ethnicity/Racialisation/Nationalism and Community
The categories of ethnicity, “race”, nation/ nationalism refer, variously, to aspects of identity
which are—or are thought to be—distinguished through cultural criteria, or phenotypical
markers in the case of “race” (Barth 1969; Miles 1982; Murji and Solomos, 2005; Smith
2010; Yuval-Davis 1997). Although variable, these criteria are transmitted generationally in and
through households, families and communities of various types, including religious/ethnic
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
143
communities. These are also distinguished by operating both at individual and group levels: for
instance, although individuals may “carry” ethnic or national identity, these are viewed as
attributes of a larger group or formation (in the case of nation states or national identities).
Debates among feminists from minority and majority ethnic and racialised groupings have
played formative roles in the development of intersectionality perspectives (see above) and in
the directions taken by feminist activism and writing more generally. Although “race”, ethnicity
and nation are not the main focus within this special issue, they are always “present”—and form
a strand within the discussions here. Ethnic/religious and racialised othering play key roles in
stigmatising and marginalising some groups, often minority ethnic/national/racialised groupings, while often privileging others. Additionally, these categories have become closely
intertwined with global inequalities—themselves formed in part through Western colonial
projects (see from a large literature Galeano 1997; Grieg et al. 2007; Hage 2000; Wallerstein
2004). They may cut across and add complexity to (or alternatively, reinforce) other sources of
identity and social division such as gender, class, sexuality or dis/ability.
As noted above, queer and sexuality studies have perhaps been less active in acknowledging
racialised and national differences and inequalities than contemporary gender and feminist studies,
although exceptions exist in the writings of queers of colour. Klesse notes marginalisation of some
groups in his discussion of potential exclusions within polyamory communities and households.
Gutiérrez discusses the coloniality or racialisation of domestic work within the European Union; this
has gone along with the development of transnational migration and the precarisation of domestic
and care labour. This process has ethnic and national as well as class(ed) dimensions since people
undertaking low paid, insecure and often low status work often migrate from poorer countries.
Alternatively, they are often drawn from ethnic minority groups within a nation. Anthias highlights
how intersectional perspectives contributed to analysis of the variety of types of violence against
women. For instance, ethnic minority women facing household violence—as has often been
remarked (Amos and Parmar 1984; Collins 1990; Crenshaw 1994) —may face state racism as well
as abuse within the household. Or in another instance, honour-based violence has become identified
with racialised minorities. Honour-based violence is considered by the UK Crown Prosecution
Service to be distinguished from other forms of violence by a degree of approval or collusion from
family or community members, when it is deemed that the group has been shamed (cited in Anthias,
this volume). This issue has been highlighted in Western media and popular culture as linked with
Muslim community groupings; therefore, this discourse has itself become identified with
Islamophobic expressions. However, the honour/shame complex has been common throughout
the Mediterranean area, including in Christian southern Europe (Peristiany 1966), as Anthias notes.
More, it may not be easy to distinguish “honour” killings and “ordinary” abuse and murder (by
ethnic majority men and sometimes, women) of women deemed to be sexually unfaithful.
Some articles emphasise the categories of nation and nationalism. Binnie outlines how Polish
national identity has been used by rightwing populist groups (or governments) such as the Law and
Justice Party to mobilise nationalist sentiment against LGBTQ visibility and identity. LGBTQ
people are stigmatised not only as “not truly Polish” but (with echoes of historical anti-Semitism)
also as linked to “transnational” forces beyond the boundaries of Poland such as the European
Union: i.e. “Eurogays”. Epprecht (2005) similarly notes how nationalist movements have sometimes fomented homophobic mobilisations in southern Africa. Jacobs observes that land movements
and land claims are often bolstered by links with national and/or racialised identities. National and
racial identity are evident, for instance, in mobilising demands concerning land claims in the exsettler societies of South Africa and Zimbabwe (Hammar et al. 2003; Hanlon et al. 2012; Jacobs
2010). The theme of national resistance forms an important backdrop for Hoang’s study of
Vietnamese businessmen in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC). Hoang deploys a relational masculinity
framework and outlines how businessmen deliberately “lead on” Western, especially American,
144
Jacobs and Klesse
businessmen seeking to close deals in the expanding capitalist economy of Viet Nam. The
Vietnamese men have no interest in closing deals with the Americans; rather, they use displays of
prosperity both to bolster their own masculinity and to underline Viet Nam’s new position in the
global economy. The spectre of excolonial and imperialist wars against Viet Nam looms large.
Social Class
One of the aims of the special issue is to bring class back into analyses. Recent emphases on
individual identities, flexibility, choice, consumption, and the cultural (when seen as unattached to
other structural aspects) have at times acted to obscure class divisions (see Pakulski and Waters
1996). This is paradoxical: in fact class and wealth divisions have been increasing in most
wealthier countries since the 1970s (Stiglitz 2012; Westergaard 1995) while the gaze of much
social research has focussed in other directions. Thus, social class has moved from occupying a
central position in social analysis (see, e.g. Crompton 2008; Edgell 1993; Marshall 1989, 1997;
Wright 1985) to one marginalised or often ignored. At times, this has taken place in favour of
analyses of other axes of differentiation.
Work connecting ethnic and racialised divisions with class has a long history (Balibar and
Wallerstein 1991; Marable 1991; Rex and Moore 1979; Wilson 1996). Some feminist materialist
analyses (Mann and Crompton 1986; also Davis 1982), explorations of masculinity (Connell 1998),
or works incorporating cultural aspects of class (Skeggs 1997) have drawn connections between
gender and class. Intersectional research, as discussed above, has highlighted the interconnected
nature of social divsions (Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1983, 1992; Collins 1990). The idea of
intersectionality has acknowledged the intertwined nature of different “divisions” from the standpoint of individuals, but as Anthias notes (2001; this volume), often sidelines class analysis in
practice.
The current economic crisis has sharply exacerbated class divisions. Structural analysis of
class, class inequalities and how neoliberal socioeconomic policies have increased these, have
recently received greater attention (Harvey 2011; Jones 2011; Wilkinson and Pickett 2009;
Wright 2005).
Within this volume, social class is a strand that runs through most articles. As noted,
Anthias discusses the marginalisation of class analyses in intersectional perspectives.
Gutiérrez Rodríguez observes the differential positioning of care workers by informal/formal
employment status and social class, in analysing feminised caring labour. Jacobs notes the
positioning of women as labour—potentially a (gendered) class position—within peasant
and smallholder households. Portocarrero examines how empowerment strategies may
“carry” class elements so that poorer Nicaraguan women doubt “traditional” or indigenous
knowledge—coded as lower in status—about sexuality and bodies. Hoang’s analysis centres
around elite men in Ho Chi Minh City and how they underline and display their class and
financial positions. Klesse notes the classed exclusions in many polyamory households and
movements, evident in differential ability to purchase property, to travel and to access other
resources. And Binnie’s complex analysis notes both the frequent marginalisation of class
analysis in sexuality studies, as well as how Polish working class people’s interests, under
attack through neoliberal economic policies, are mobilised against an internal LGBTQ
grouping cast as “outsiders” and as privileged.
Social Movements and Resistance
Social movements are usually considered to be collective actions for some type of social
change, operating outside established bodies or institutions (Jasper 2011). Diani (1992)
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
145
stresses the aspect of development of shared identity and definition of movements, as actors
being on the same “side” of a social conflict. This (dynamic) is reflected in a definition of
social movements as consisting of networks of informal interaction between a plurality of
individuals, groups and/or organisations engaged in political and/or cultural conflict on the
basis of shared collective identity (1992, p.3).
Della Porta and Diani (1999) cite four key aspects of social movements: (1) informal
interaction networks; (2) shared beliefs and solidarity; (3) collective action focussing on conflicts
(promoting or opposing social change) and (4) use of protest (e.g. Tilly 1993 among others),
discussed how the dynamics of social protests are tied in with political and socioeconomic
contexts.
Social movements and resistances form a strong theme within this volume, although not using
formal aspects of analysis such as network analysis (Diani and McAdam 2003; Tanaka 2004) or
opportunity structures (Tarrow 1998), such as shifting alignments, divisions between elites or access
to influential allies. Tarrow showed how social movements can influence various spheres of life such
as policy reforms within states as well as personal lives—both, relevant to the study of sexuality and
gender.
It is important to note as well, that not all “resistance” takes the form of social movements
or collective action (Jacobs 2004; Pankhurst and Jacobs 1988). And what constitutes a social
movement has added complexity in the contemporary world, given the growth of NGOs in
developmental contexts (Hickey et al. 2008); often these come to substitute for a state
weakened through neoliberal policies. More positively, a lead is sometimes offered by
international agencies such as UN Women (see for instance, Ford 2013).
The movements and resistances discussed here range from LGBTQ movements to
feminist/woman-centred movements for empowerment and resource rights; to polyamory as an
organised contestation and movements for land rights. Most of the movements discussed here fit
broadly into a human rights frame aiming for greater individual autonomy, control and expression,
but sometimes also touch on group rights (e.g. for land; women’s legal rights; rights for gay, lesbian,
bisexual and poly people).
For instance, Klesse discusses polyamory networks; his article is an intervention in their
development towards greater inclusivity, especially in class and ethnic terms. Anthias discusses
different kinds of claims made concerning violence against women when intersectional perspectives are taken into account. Portocarrero focuses on contradictions within the work of two
Nicaraguan feminist NGOs which seek empowerment of women through greater openness
about sexuality in its different manifestations. Jacobs’ work on gendered land rights cites a
number of social movements organised around gender, nature and land, ranging from ecofeminist trends to contemporary movements asserting women’s claims to livelihood autonomy or
greater sexual autonomy on the basis of “new” family forms.
Not all movements are “progressive” in terms of advocating greater democracy or inclusiveness (see, e.g. Butalia 1995). Binnie’s article illustrates this through discussion of mobilisation of
right-wing populist organisations against demands made by LGBQT people. Or, movements
may be democratic with respect to one demand (such as that for land redistribution) but these
may have cross-cutting—often, unintended—consequences. Tilly (1999) noted that movement
claims and movement consequences were not necessarily the same. Here, movements for
livelihood security and economic justice (as above, sometimes they are populist movements)
often exclude women and lessen their autonomy, as Jacobs argues. Many forms of overt and
covert resistance and contestations also take place outside any social movement. For instance, the
Vietnamese businessmen discussed in Hoang’s example acted as individuals, but were also
connected through close social networks. Their individual actions—intended to contest and
display hierarchy—result in effects for a wider group or network.
146
Jacobs and Klesse
Last, social class appears as a division or sometimes, as contradiction within social movements: not surprisingly, class divisions pervade and cross-cut social movements as other aspects
of society. The articles by Binnie, Jacobs and Portocarrero all indicate surprising consequences
or twists when class is taken into account. Portocarrero’s research indicates that NGO empowerment strategies have the capacity to be effective at individual levels but to underline class and
income inequalities. Jacobs notes the sometimes contradictory impacts when women are not
included within class-based movements; their own demands simultaneously encompass class
and gender positionings and interests. Binnie analyses how LGBTQ people come to be assigned
an (often fictitious) elite status contrasting with that of provincial Polish working class people.
The articles discussed above are presented in the following order.
Floya Anthias’ work, alone and with Yuval-Davis, has done much to shape discussions of
intersectionality. In the first article in the volume, Anthias focuses on how an intersectional approach
rooted in political economy can be used to analyse different forms of violence against women.
Susie Jacobs’ article next explores the little studied links between sexuality and gendered
land tenure and land claims. Using a range of case studies, Jacobs argues that fears about
women’s sexuality and their key roles within households and farms, form important elements in resistance to claims for equitable land rights.
Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez examines the “feminisation” of domestic labour in
Europe in the face of the persistence of heteronormative gender cultures, the neoliberalisation
of working conditions, and racist regulations of citizenship practices.
Christian Klesse discusses socioeconomic inequalities within poly relationships and
communities. He suggests that the poly movement will only be able to measure up to its
self-declared egalitarian ethos, if it advances a more class-conscious critical reflexivity
regarding nonmonogamy under conditions of neoliberal capitalism.
Ana Portocarrero Lacayo’s study of two Nicaraguan NGOs focuses on strategies seeking
to empower urban and rural women through encouraging greater sexual awareness and
assertiveness. These strategies hold benefits, including feelings of greater self-confidence; at
the same time, however, there exist risks. These include increased individualisation and
devaluation of women’s traditional caring roles, links, and knowledge; Portocarrero argues
that the latter have synergies with neoliberal economic changes.
Jon Binnie’s article explores the ambivalences, tensions and contradictions inherent
within the sexual politics of neoliberalisation in the context of the contestation of LGBTQ
politics in Poland. Binnie reminds us that neoliberal policies impact in very different ways
on political struggles and discourses and cautions that critical theories on economics, class
and sexuality need to pay close attention to national and regional contexts.
The volume concludes with Kimberly Hoang’s study of Vietnamese masculinities, set
against a backdrop of sex work venues in Ho Chi Minh City. Hoang finds that use of hard
cash rather than credit in transactions allows wealthy local Vietnamese businessmen to
deconstruct dominant Western ideals as well as to assert their place against Western
businessmen and within the emerging global order.
Conclusion
This special issue has been designed to integrate the “gendering” and “queering” of debates on
political economy and to infuse work on gender and sexuality with class and economic
perspectives. Current socioeconomic developments and crisis highlight the pressing need to
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
147
integrate such perspectives. In the issue, we have also argued that scholars (and activists) still
tend to categorise themselves, and to be categorised, as located in either “feminist”/“gender
studies” frames or alternately, as fitting within “queer”/“sexuality studies” frameworks.
Although there are differences and sometimes, disagreements between theoretical traditions
and perspectives, these can overlook the close affinities between the concepts (Casey et al. 2006).
We do not claim to have bridged political and theoretical gaps, but we hope that the work
presented here indicates how empirical, historical, and theoretical work can begin to do so—and
sometimes, can pose new questions. We hope that this special issue further stimulates
crossdisciplinary and crosscategorical work and debates.
References
Abelove, H., Barale, M. A., & Halperin, D. M. (Eds.). (1993). The lesbian and gay studies reader. London:
Routledge.
Adam, B. D. (1998). Structural foundations of the gay world. In P. M. Nardi & B. E. Schneider (Eds.), Social
perspectives in lesbian and gay studies (pp. 220–229). New York: Routledge.
Alexander, J. M. (2005). Pedagogies of crossing. Meditation on feminism, sexual politics, and the sacred.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Alexander, J. M., & Mohanty, C. T. (1997). Introduction: Genealogies, legacies, movements. In J. M. Alexander &
C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Feminist genealogies, colonial legacies, democratic futures. New York: Routledge.
pp. xiii–xlii.
Alexander, S. (1976). Women’s work in nineteenth-century London; a study of the years 1820–1850. In J.
Mitchell & A. Oakley (Eds.), The rights and wrongs of women (pp. 59–111). Harmondswoth: Penguin.
Amos, V., & Parmar, P. (1984). Challenging imperial feminism. Feminist Review, 17, 3–20.
Anthias, F. (1998). Rethinking social divisions: some notes towards a theoretical framework. Sociological
Review, 46(3), 506–535.
Anthias, F. (2001). The concept of “social division” and theorising social stratification: Looking at ethnicity
and class. Sociology, 35(4), 835–854.
Anthias, F. (2005). Social stratification and social inequality: models of intersectionality and identity. In F.
Devine, M. Savage, J. Scott, & R. Crompton (Eds.), Rethinking class: culture, identity and lifestyle (pp.
34–54). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anthias, F., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1983). Contexualizing feminism: gender, ethnic, and class divisions. Feminist
Review, 15, 62–75.
Anthias, F., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1992). Racialized boundaries: race, nation, gender, colour and class.
London: Routledge.
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). La frontera—borderlands. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Book Company.
Balibar, E., & Wallerstein, E. (1991). Race, nation, class: ambiguous identities. London: Verso.
Barrett, M. (1980). Women’s oppression today: problems in Marxist feminist analysis. London: NLB.
Barrett, M., & McIntosh, M. (1982). The anti-social family. London: Verso.
Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Basu, A. (Ed.). (2010). Women’s movements in a global era: the power of local feminisms. Boulder: Westview.
Beasley, C. (2005). Gender and sexuality. London: Sage.
Beasley, C. (2008). Rethinking hegemonic masculinity in a globalizing world. Men and Masculinities, 11(1),
86–103.
Bedford, K., & Rai, S. M. (2010). Feminists theorize international political economy. Signs, 36(1), 1–18.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.
Beechey, V. (1979). On patriarchy. Feminist Review, 3, 66–82.
Beechey, V. (1987). Unequal work. London: Verso.
Benería, L. (1992). Accounting for women’s work: the progress of two decades. World Development, 20(11),
1547–1560.
Benería, L., Berik, G., & Floro, M. (2003). Gender, development and globalization: economics as if people
mattered. NYC: Routledge.
Bergeron, S. (2010). Querying feminist economics’ straight path to development: household models
reconsidered. In A. Lind (Ed.), Development, sexual rights and global governance (pp. 54–64).
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
148
Jacobs and Klesse
Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (1998). Sex in public. Critical Inquiry, 24, 547–566.
Binnie, J. (2004). The globalization of sexuality. London: Sage.
Binnie, J. (2011). Class, sexuality and space (comment). Sexualities, 14(1), 21–26.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education (pp. 241-259). London: Greenwood Press.
Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International
Women’s Studies, 5(3), 75–86.
Brierly, H. (2000). Gender identity and sexual behavior. In P. C. Rodríguez Rust (Ed.), Bisexuality in the
United States. A social science reader (pp. 104–126). New York: Columbia University Press.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Budhiraja, S., Fried, S., & Teixeira, A. (2010). Spelling it out: from alphabet soup to sexual rights and gender justice. In
A. Lind (Ed.), Development, sexual rights and global governance (pp. 131–144). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Butalia, U. (1995). Women and right wing movements: Indian experiences. London: Zed Books.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1994). Against proper objects. Differences, 6(2/3), 1–26.
Butler, J. (1997). Merely cultural? Social Text, 15(3/4), 265–278.
Byrne, D. (2005). Social exclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Califia, P. (2000). Public sex: the culture of radical sex (2nd edn.). San Francisco: Cleis Press.
Casey, M., Richardson, D., & McLaughlin, J. (2006). Intersections between feminist and queer theory.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chant, S. (1997). Women-headed households: diversity and dynamics in the developing world. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Chen, M. A., Vanek, J., & Carr, M. (2004). Mainstreaming informal employment and gender in poverty
reduction: a handbook for policy-makers and other stakeholders. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (Eds.). (2013). Special issue on Intersectionality Studies. Signs,
38(4).
Cohen, C. J. (2001). Punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens. In M. Blasius (Ed.), Sexual identities, queer
politics (pp. 200–227). Princeton University Press: Oxford.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.
Combahee River Collective. (1979). A black feminist statement. In G. T. Hull, P. B. Scott, & B. Smith (Eds.),
All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave (pp. 13–22). New York: The
Feminist Press.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Blackwell and Polity.
Connell, R. W. (1998) Masculinities and globalization. Men and Masculinities, 1(1), 3–23.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). London: Polity.
Connell, R. W. (2009a). Gender in world perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Connell, R. W. (2009b). Gender. Cambridge: Polity.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender &
Society, 19, 829–859.
Cooper, D. (1995). Power in struggle. Buckingham: The Open University Press.
Cooper, D. (2004). Challenging diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 89,
139–167.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1994). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women
of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Crompton, R. (2008). Class and stratification (3rd edn). Cambridge: Polity.
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities. The making of a homosexual minority in the United
States 1940–1970. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Davis, A. (1982). Women, race and class. London: Women’s Press.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as a buzzword. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.
de Beauvoir, S. (1976). The second sex. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1999). Social movements: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (Eds.). (2003). Social movements and networks: relational approaches to
collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review, 40(1), 1–25.
Dixon-Mueller, R. (1985). Women’s work in third world agriculture: concepts and indicators (2nd edn).
Geneva: International Labour Office.
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
149
Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Dworkin, A. (1988). Intercourse. Old Tappan: Free Press.
Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: men possessing women. New York: Plume.
Edgell, S. (1993). Class: key concepts in sociology. London: Routledge.
Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (Eds.). (2003). Global woman: nannies, maids and sex workers in the
new economy. London: Granta.
Elson, D. (2002). Gender justice, human rights and neo-liberal economic policies. In M. Moyneux & S.
Razavi (Eds.), Gender justice, development and rights (pp. 78–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eng, D. L. (2010). The feeling of kinship: queer liberalism and the racialization of intimacy. Durham:
University of Durham Press.
Eng, D. L., Halberstam, J., & Esteban, J. (2005). Special issue: what’s queer about queer studies now. Social
Text, 23(3–4), 1–17. doi:10.1215/01642472-23-3-4_84-85-1.
Engels, F. (1972). Origins of the family, private property and the state. London: Pathfinder.
English, D., Hollibaugh, A., & Rubin, G. (1987). Talking sex: a conversation on sexuality and feminism. In
Feminist Review (Ed), Sexuality: a reader (pp. 63–80). London: Virago.
Epprecht, M. (2005). “Black skin”, cowboy masculinity: a genealogy of homophobia in the African nationalist
movement in Zimbabwe to 1983. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7, 253–266.
Erel, U., Haritaworn, J., Gutiérrez Rodríguez, E., & Klesse, C. (2011). On the depoliticisation of intersectionality
talk: conceptualising multiple oppressions in critical sexuality studies. In Y. Taylor, S. Hines, & M. Casey
(Eds.), Theorizing intersectionality and sexuality (pp. 56–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body. New York: Basic Books.
Featherstone, M. (2007). Consumer culture and postmodernism (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Feminist Review (Ed.). (1987). Sexuality: a reader. London: Virago.
Ferguson, R. (2004). Aberrations in black: toward a queer of color critique. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Ferree, M. M., & Tripp, A. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global feminism: transnational women’s activism, organizing,
and human rights. NYC: New York University Press.
Firestone, S. (1979). The dialectic of sex. London: The Women’s Press.
Floyd, K. (2009). The reification of desire: toward a queer Marxism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Folbre, N. (1986). Hearts and spades: paradigms of household economics. World Development, 14(2), 245–255.
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). London: Penguin Books.
Ford, L. (2013, March 16). Activists welcome hard-fought UN agreement on women’s rights. Guardian
Online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/mar/16/activists-welcome-un-agreeementwomens-rights. Accessed April 14, 2013
Fortin, E. (2005). Reforming land rights: the World Bank and globalisation of agriculture. Social and Legal
Studies, 14(2), 147–177.
Fraser, N. (1997a). Justice interruptus: critical reflections of the ‘post socialist’ condition. London: Routledge.
Fraser, N. (1997b). Heterosexism, misrecognition, and capitalism: a response to Judith Butler. Social Text,
15(3/4), 279–294.
Fraser, N., & Nicholson, L. (1990). Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between feminism and
postmodernism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 19–38). New York: Routledge.
Galeano, E. (1997). Open veins of Latin America: five centuries of the pillage of a continent. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
Gardiner, J. (1975). Women’s domestic labour. New Left Review, 89, 49–58.
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glucksmann, M. (1995). Why work? Gender and the total social organisation of labour. Gender, Work and
0rganization, 2(2), 63–75.
Glucksmann, M. (2005). Shifting boundaries and interconnections: extending the ‘total social organisation of
labour’. In L. Pettinger, J. Parry, R. Taylor, & M. Glucksmann (Eds.), A new sociology of work? (pp. 19–
36). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Goode, W. (1970). World revolution and family patterns. New York: Free Press.
Grabham, E., Cooper, D., Krishnadas, J., & Herman, D. (2009). Intersectionality and beyond: law, power and
the politics of location. London: Routledge.
Grieg, A., Hulme, D., & Turner, M. (2007). Challenging global inequality: development theory and practice
in the 21st century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies towards a corporeal feminism. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
150
Jacobs and Klesse
Hage, G. (2000). White nation: fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. London: Routledge.
Hammar, A., Raftopoulos, B., & Jensen, S. (Eds.). (2003) Zimbabwe’s unfinished business: Rethinking land,
state and nation in the context of crisis. Harare: Weaver Press.
Hanlon, J., Manjengwa, J., & Smart, T. (2012). Zimbabwe takes back its land. Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian.
Haritaworn, J. (2007). Queer mixed race? Interrogating homonormativity through Thai interraciality. In G.
Brown, K. Browne, & J. Lim (Eds.), Sexy spaces: theory, politics and practices in contemporary
geographies of sexualities (pp. 101–112). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hartmann, H. (1979). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: towards a more progressive union.
Capital and Class, 8, 1–34.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2011). The enigma of capital. London: Verso.
Hennessy, R. (1995). Queer visibility in commodity culture. In L. Nicholson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Social
postmodernism: beyond identity politics (pp. 142–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hennessy, R. (2000). Profit and pleasure: sexual identities in late capitalism. New York: Routledge.
Hennessy, R. (2011). Open secrets here and there: sexuality, class, and affect. Keynote talk to ‘Gender,
Sexuality and Political Economy’ conference, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. 24th
May, 2011.
Hickey, S., Bebbington, A., & Mitlin, D. (Eds.). (2008). Can NGOs make a difference? London: Zed Books.
Himmelweit, S. (1995). The discovery of “unpaid work”: the social consequences of the expansion of ‘work’.
Feminist Economics, 1(2), 1–19.
Himmelweit, S., & Mohun, S. (1977). Domestic labour and capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1(1), 15–31.
Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: working families and the revolution at home.
New York: Penguin.
hooks, b. (1982). Ain’t I a woman? Black women and feminism. London: Pluto.
Hunter, N., & Duggan, L. (1995). Sexual dissent and political culture. London: Routledge.
International Labour Office (ILO) (2013a). Global economic crisis, gender and work: key policy challenges
and options. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—integration/documents/publication/
wcms_146812.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2013
International Labour Office (ILO) (2013b). Statistics of work and of the labour force, Department of Statistics,
ILOMESEU/2013. ,http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—stat/documents/event/wcms_
175150.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2013
Jackson, S. (2006). Heterosexuality, sexuality and gender: rethinking the intersections. In D. Richardson, J. McLauglin,
& M. E. Casey (Eds.), Intersections between feminist and queer theory (pp. 38–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Jacobs, S. (2004) Livelihoods, security and needs: gender relations and land reform in South Africa. Journal
of International Women's Studies, 6(1), 1–19.
Jacobs, S. (2010). Gender and agrarian reforms. New York and London: Routledge.
Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: an introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Jagose, A. (2009). Feminism’s queer theory. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 157–174. doi:10.1177/
0959353509102152.
Jasper, J. (2011). Social movements. In G. Ritzer & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), The concise encyclopedia of sociology
(pp. 565–566). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jeffreys, S. (1994). The lesbian heresy: a feminist perspective on the sexual revolution. London: The Women’s Press.
Johnson, E. P., & Henderson, M. G. (Eds.). (2006). Black queer studies. Duke University Press: London and
Durham.
Jones, O. (2011). Chavs: the demonization of the working class. London: Verso.
Keck, M., & Sikkinck, M. (1998). Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kiernan, K. E. (2007). Changing European families. In J. Scott, J. Treas, & M. Richards (Eds.), Blackwell
companion to sociology of families (pp. 34–53). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kirsch, M. H. (2000). Queer theory and social change. London: Routledge.
Klesse, C. (2007). The spectre of promiscuity: gay male and bisexual non-monogamies and polyamories.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kuntsman, A., & Miyake, E. (Eds.). (2008). Out of place: interrogating the silences of queerness/raciliality.
York University: Raw Nerve Books, Centre of Women’s Studies.
Long, J. (2012). Anti-porn: the resurgence of anti-pornography feminism. London: Zed.
Lorde, A. (1988). The Audre Lorde compendium: essays, speeches and journals. London: HarperCollins.
Lutz, H., Herrera Vivar, M. T., & Supik, L. (Eds.). (2011). Framing intersectionality: debates on a multifaceted concept in gender studies. London: Routledge.
Manalansan, M. (2005). Race, violence, and neoliberal spatial politics in the global city. Social Text, 23(3–4), 141–155.
Mann, M., & Crompton, R. (1986). Gender and stratification. Cambridge: Polity.
lntroduction: Special Issue on “Gender, Sexuality and Political Economy”
151
Marable, M. (1991). Race, reform and rebellion: the second reconstruction in black America, 1945–1990 (2nd edn).
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Marshall, G. (1989). Social class in modern Britain. London: Unwin Hyman.
Marshall, G. (1997). Repositioning class. London: Sage.
Matthaei, J. (2008). The sexual division of labor, sexuality, and lesbian/gay liberation: towards a Marxistfeminist analysis of sexuality in U.S. capitalism. In J. Jacobsen & A. Zellner (Eds.), Queer economics: a
reader (pp. 194–228). London: Routledge.
McCall, L. (2001). Complex inequality: gender, race and class in the new economy. New York: Routledge.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771–1780.
McKinnon. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard Press.
McLaughlin, J., Casey, M. E., & Richardson, D. (2006). Introduction: at the intersections of feminist and
queer debates. In D. Richardson, J. McLauglin, & M. E. Casey (Eds.), Intersections between feminist and
queer theory (pp. 1–18). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mies, M. (1986). Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale. London: Zed.
Miles, R. (1982). Racism and migrant labour. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Millett, K. (1970). Sexual politics. New York: Doubleday.
Mirza, H. S. (Ed.). (1997). Black British feminism: a reader. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, J. (1971). Woman’s estate. Harmonsworth: Penguin.
Mohanty, C. T. (1988). Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourse. Feminist Review, 30, 61–88.
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without borders: decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Morris, L. (1990). The workings of the household. Cambridge: Polity.
Murji, K., & Solomos, J. (Eds.). (2005). Racialisation: studies in theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nelson, N. (1981). African women in the development process. London: Routledge.
Nestle, J., Howell, C., & Wilkins, R. (2002). GenderQueer: voices from beyond the sexual binary. Los
Angeles: Alyson Books.
Nicholson, L. (1995). Interpreting gender. In L. Nicholson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism:
beyond identity politics (pp. 68–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.
Oakley, A. (1985). The sociology of housework. Oxford: Blackwell.
Only Women Press Collective (Ed.). (1981). Love your enemy? The debate between heterosexual feminism
and political lesbianism. London: Only Women Press.
Pakulski, J., & Waters, M. (1996). The death of class. London: Sage.
Pankhurst, D., & Jacobs, S. (1988). Land tenure, gender relations and agricultural production: the case of
Zimbabwe’s peasantry. In J. Davison (Ed.), Women and land tenure in Africa (pp. 202–227). Boulder:
Westview.
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. (1956). Family socialization and interaction processes. London: Routledge, Kegan
Paul.
Peristiany, J. (1966). Honour and shame: the values of Mediterranean society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Phizacklea, A., & Wolkowitz, C. (1995). Homeworking women: gender, racism and class at work. London: Sage.
Plummer, K. (2010). Generational sexualities, subterranean traditions, and the hauntings of the sexual world:
some preliminary remarks. Symbolic Interactionism, 33(2), 163–190.
Power, L. (1995). No bath, but plenty of bubbles: an oral history of the Gay Liberation Front 1970–1973.
London: Cassell.
Ramazanoglu, C. (1989). Feminisms and the contradictions of oppression. London: Routledge.
Raymond, J. (1980). The transsexual empire. London: Women’s Press.
Rex, J., & Moore, R. (1979). Race, community and conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rich, A. (1986). Blood, bread and poetry. New York: Norton.
Richardson, D. (2004). Locating sexualities: from here to normality. Sexualities, 7(4), 391–411.
Riddle, C. (1998). Divided sisterhood: a critical review of Janice Raymond’s the transexual empire. In S.
Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 144–158). London: Routledge.
Robinson, L. (2007). Gay men and the left in post-war Britain: how the personal got political. Manchester:
University of Manchester Press.
Rodgerson, G., & Wilson, E. (1991). Pornography and feminism against censorship. London: Lawrence
&Wishart.
Rubin, G. (1992). Thinking sex: notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C.S. Vance (Ed.),
Pleasure and Danger (pp. 267–319). London: Pandora.
Russell, D. E. (1993). Making violence sexy: feminist views on pornography. Buckingham: Open University.
Sargant, L. (Ed.). (1981). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism. London: Pluto.
152
Jacobs and Klesse
Scott, A. M. (1994). Divisions and solidarities: gender, class and employment in Latin America. London: Routledge.
Scott, J., Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2006). Gender inequalities in the 21st century: new barriers and
continuing constraints. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1995). The epistemology of the closet. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Segal, L. (1994). Straight sex: The politics of pleasure. London: Virago.
Sen, A. (1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent inequalities (pp. 123–149).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, G., & Grown, K. (1987). Development, crises and alternative visions. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of class and gender: becoming respectable. London: Sage.
Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization: capitalism and its alternatives (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. (2010). Nationalism (3rd edn). Cambridge: Polity.
Smyth, C. (1992). Lesbians talk queer notions. London: Scarlet Press.
Standing, G. (1989). Global feminization through flexible labor. World Development, 17(7), 1077–1095.
doi:10.1016/0305-750X(89)90170-8.
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: Norton.
Tanaka, H. (2004). Conceiving and researching women’s networks in globalisation. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, 8(1–2), 18–37.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Taylor, Y. (2007). Working-class lesbian life: classed outsiders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor, Y. (2009). Complexities and complications: intersections of class and sexuality. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 13(2), 189–203.
Taylor, Y., Hines, S., & Casey, M. (Eds.). (2011). Theorizing intersectionality and sexuality. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power: family in the world 1900–2000. Cambridge: Polity.
Tilly, C. (1993). European revolutions: 1492–1992. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tilly, C. (1999). From interactions to outcomes of social movements. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly
(Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 253–270). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tinsman, H. (2002). Partners in conflict: The politics of gender, sexuality and labor in the Chilean agrarian
reform, 1950–73. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
UN Women (2013).UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women. http://www.unwomen.org/how-we-work/
un-trust-fund/. Accessed May 13, 2013
Vance, C. S. (Ed.). (1992). Pleasure and danger. London: Pandora.
Walby, S. (1990). Theorising patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walby, S. (2009). Globalization and inequalities: complexities and contested modernities. Los Angeles and
London: Sage.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: an introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.
Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Weeks, J. (1990). Coming-out: homosexual politics in Britain from the nineteenth century to the present
(2nded.). London: Quartet.
Westergaard, J. (1995). Who gets what? The hardening of inequality in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Polity.
Whitehead, A. (2006). Some preliminary notes on the subordination of women. IDS Bulletin, 37(4), 24–27.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better.
London: Allan Lane.
Wilson, E. (1993). Is transgression transgressive? In J. Bristow & A. R. Wilson (Eds.), Activating theory:
lesbian, gay, bisexual politics (pp. 107–117). London: Lawrence &Wishart.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: the world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage.
Wright, E. O. (1985). Classes. London: Verso.
Wright, E. O. (2005). Foundations of a neo-Marxist analysis. In E. O. Wright (Ed.), Approaches to class
analysis (pp. 4–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yekani, E. H., Michaelis, B., & Dietze, G. (2011). “Try again. Fail again. Fail Better.” Queer interdependencies as corrective methodologies. In Y. Taylor, S. Hines, & M. Casey (Eds.), Theorizing
intersectionality and sexuality (pp. 78–98). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and nation. London: Sage.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3),
193–209. doi:10.1177/1350506806065752.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). Beyond the recognition and re-distribution dichotomy: intersectionality and stratification. In H. Lutz, M. T. Herrera, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: debates on a multi-faceted
concept in gender studies (pp. 155–170). London: Routledge.