Rebel Mothers

Hello! Welcome to part two of the economics of motherhood. Last week we discussed the cost of motherhood in the US, and this week we’ll go upstream to see where this all started.

First we’ll talk about different economic systems that we’re all somewhat familiar with - capitalism, socialism, and communism. I’ll give a breakdown of what motherhood looks like, or might look like, each of these systems. Then we’ll look at the inherent problems in each of these economic systems, and I’ll propose some alternatives, like the sharing or gift economies, and how these might affect mothers.

Now, again my disclaimer, as we get into this episode, please remember that I am not an economist. I’m a maternal scholar and my field of expertise is motherhood studies. So I’m going to give some super high level and basic economic definitions here just so we’re all on the same page, please feel free to let me know if I get something glaringly wrong but also have some grace. I went down so many rabbit holes researching this episode, but I want to try and keep it simple.

First up, what do I mean by Economics of motherhood? At its core, economics is the study of how societies allocate their limited resources to satisfy their unlimited wants and needs. It is considered a social science that studies the value, production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. We often think of the economy as something that takes place in the public sphere, the market economy, right, I go to Target and buy a new pillow and I’ve just participated in the market economy.

BUT there’s so much more to economics, especially when we consider the time, energy, and labor that goes into production of these goods and services. And when we move our lens from the public market economy to the private sphere, the home, this is where things get really interesting and relevant to the topic of this podcast. In fact, the word economics comes from the Greek word oikonomia, which means managing the household. The very root of economics is related to the home. So when I’m talking about the economics of motherhood, I’m talking about looking at how societies allocate their resources in ways that directly affect the experience of being a mother.

And I think it’s important to remember that Economics is unlike a natural science in that it is a completely human construction, all the rules about exchange and labor and pricing and everything are all made up by humans. And as a human-constructed system, the people who made up the rules of this system over hundreds of years brought their own biases and assumptions to it. So, for example, for the first few hundred years of our country, African Americans were completely excluded from accessing financial services like banks or loans, and obviously faced significant barriers to economic advancement. This systemic racism continues to show up today as a persistent Black-white wealth gap. According to a 2019 report, median Black families have 10 times less wealth than median white families.

Women were also excluded from most economic activities for hundreds of years. For much of European and American history, women were legally and socially restricted from owning property, earning their own income, or managing their finances independently. It wasn’t even until 1974 that women were allowed to access credit on equal terms as men. I love the scene in Greta Gerwig’s Little Women where Amy is explaining to Jo why marriage is, for her, an economic proposition
Well. I’m not a poet, I’m just a woman. And as a woman, I have no way to make money, not enough to earn a living and support my family.
Even if I had my own money, which I don’t, it would belong to my husband the minute we were married.
If we had children they would belong to him, not me. They would be his property.
So don’t sit there and tell me that marriage isn’t an economic proposition, because it is. It may not be for you but it most certainly is for me.

So it’s important to remember that when we talk about motherhood and economics, we remember that for women, we are unlearning hundreds of years of conditioning about money and exchange and property and our worth and the value of our labor.

So, now let’s look at some specific economic systems so we have an understanding of what we’re dealing with.
Different economic systems
There are many different economic systems available, but the ones we’re most familiar with are probably capitalism, socialism, and communism, at least that’s what I learned about growing up. Of course, I was taught that capitalism was the best economic system because it was wrapped up in the American dream that anyone could be rich and successful if you just worked hard enough, and that communism was bad because it meant that you didn’t own anything and the government owned it all and could decide who gets what, and everyone has to dress the same and for some reason everything is gray. This is obviously pretty simplistic, but I think that’s what a lot of kids growing up in the US are taught.

But we’re not kids anymore, we’re smart, capable adults who can tackle complex and contradicting ideas full of nuance without resorting to calling one thing “good” and another thing “bad.” So let’s learn a little! Who’s ready for a nerdy history lesson about economics?? Yay! Here we go.

Adam Smith is the guy who literally wrote the book on capitalism in 1776, known as The Wealth of Nations, which was the first modern work to treat economics as a comprehensive system and as an academic discipline. (I found it interesting that capitalism was somewhat “born” the same year as the United States.) He developed the concept of division of labour and wrote about how rational self-interest and competition can lead to economic prosperity. Smith accepted the belief that people are inherently selfish, but he was also an optimist - he believed that this selfishness could be used to work for the common good if people were left to create production and commerce without government interference.

Now, remember, this is 250 years ago. Government interference meant something very different back then. Smith was educated at Oxford and wrote his famous book in England, which was undergoing major social change. Land that used to be shared in common and worked by farmers was now being privatized, in a move known as the “enclosure of the commons.” This meant that farmers and their families had to try to find work as paid laborers instead of being able to sustain themselves. Mining and manufacturing jobs were common and also horrific, with no regulation on child labor, working hours, or payment. And the “government” at the time were the landed gentry, basically the merchants and landowners with money, who did nothing to improve these conditions. So when Smith was writing against government interference, he was criticizing the economic control of the upper class. In the book Real Wealth of Nations by Riane Eisler, she writes “at the center of Smith’s thinking was the belief that the primary engine for building a better society is the market - that is, the production and exchange of goods for profit through commercial transactions.” end quote. He believed that this would ensure that the common man wasn’t cheated and exploited and the living standards would rise.

And in many ways, he was right. Capitalism was absolutely an improvement over feudalism; it more evenly distributed resources, so instead of kings and nobles owning everything, now you have more of a middle class. However, as Eisler writes, quote, “capitalism emphasized individual acquisitiveness and greed (the profit motive), relied on rankings (the class structure), continued traditions of violence (colonial conquests and wars), and failed to recognize the economic importance of the “women’s work” of caring and caregiving. In these and other ways, capitalism retained significant dominator elements.” end quote.

Now, let’s fast forward 75 years or so to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels proposed a different theory of economics called “scientific socialism.” It seemed clear to them that capitalism had failed to fulfill its promise of rising living conditions and non exploitation. Marx and Engels witnessed the poverty and working conditions of London’s working class, and began to examine economics in terms of the control of the means of production and class struggle. They believed that capitalism results in an inevitable class conflict between the bourgeoisie or owner class and the proletariat or working class.

Marx and Engels wrote about socialism as a stepping stone to the eventual goal of communism. Communism, they envisioned as a stateless, classless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the community as a whole. In a communist society, there is no private property, and resources are distributed according to the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Communism’s aim was to eliminate social hierarchies, exploitation, and alienation, creating a society where individuals are free to pursue their interests and develop their full potential.

Now, I want to pause here for a second and remind everyone that, for what it’s worth, Karl Marx died in 1883. He did not ever live to see his theories named as “Marxism,” he did not live to see communism be put into practice. I’m going to talk about the realities of these economic systems in a moment and how they affect mothers, but I think Marx gets a bad rep and a lot of the blame for some of the horrors inflicted under Stalin’s and Mao’s attempts at communism, but Karl Marx was a philosopher who spent most of his life in poverty because of his commitment to the idea that people shouldn’t be exploited.

Ok, so there we have it. To sum it up in EXTREMELY simplistic terms, capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and businesses own the means of production and operate for profit. In capitalism, goods and services are produced and exchanged in markets based on supply and demand. Competition and the pursuit of profit drive innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. The market determines prices, wages, and the allocation of resources, with minimal interference from the government. Capitalism encourages individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and investment, with the goal of maximizing wealth and prosperity.

Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. In a socialist society, the means of production, such as factories and natural resources, are owned and managed either by the state or by worker cooperatives. The goal of socialism is to create a more equitable society by ensuring that resources are distributed according to need rather than profit. Socialism advocates for social welfare programs, universal healthcare, and education, aiming to reduce income inequality and provide a higher standard of living for all members of society.

Communism, on the other hand, is a stateless, classless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the community as a whole. In a communist society, there is no private property, and resources are distributed according to the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Communism aims to eliminate social hierarchies, exploitation, and alienation, creating a society where individuals are free to pursue their interests and develop their full potential.

Now!! Let’s take a look at what mothers might experience under each of these economic systems. Each system has benefits and challenges, so let’s examine them through the lens of motherhood.
Mothering under different economies
In capitalist societies like the United States, mothers like our fictional Emily from last week face plenty of economic hurdles, from healthcare and childcare costs to income disparities and the undervaluing of domestic labor. Scholars like Silvia Federici shed light on the invisible yet crucial role of women's household labor in sustaining capitalism, advocating for its recognition and compensation to challenge patriarchal structures. The concept of the family as a unit of reproduction further underscores how the nuclear family perpetuates capitalist systems by providing unpaid labor and fueling consumption.

Despite the challenges, capitalism also offers certain opportunities for mothers, such as avenues for entrepreneurship, innovation, and consumer choice. Additionally, mothers have the opportunity to spend their money on their values, encouraging manufacturers to create safe, environmentally friendly, and high quality products that are produced at equitable and inclusive companies. In theory, capitalism offers the promise of wealth for everyone, regardless of your socioeconomic status when you’re born. This is part of the American dream, right, if you just work hard enough, you can succeed. Of course, this ignores the reality of systemic racism, gender inequality, prejudice against disability, and other factors that affect a mother's opportunities.

In contrast to capitalism’s lack of socialized care, socialist-leaning countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark prioritize social welfare policies and gender equality, providing extensive support for mothers through parental leave, subsidized child care, and universal healthcare. However, mothers in socialist economies may encounter challenges such as resource allocation issues and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Now communism, in theory, promises a reimagining of motherhood within a framework of equality and collective responsibility, with socialized care systems and comprehensive welfare programs alleviating burdens associated with childcare and domestic labor. However, in practice, communist regimes like the Soviet Union and Maoist China implemented policies to support mothers but also faced challenges such as conflicting demands between work and family responsibilities, social disruption caused by authoritarian political campaigns, and contradictions in policies.

Okay, so obviously I could spend all day talking about these different economic systems, heck people spend their whole lives studying them. But again, I am not an economist, and to me it’s clear that there are some fundamental problems with ALL of the economic systems I’ve just summarized, and this is what I actually want to talk about.

The problem is that they ALL end up failing to actually meet the needs of the majority of people. Not just the basic survival needs of food, water, shelter, and safety, although some fail to meet even those, I’m talking about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs of love and belonging, respect and self-esteem, and moving into self-actualization to achieve one’s fullest potential in life.

Here is a quote that sums up the inherent problems, again from The Real Wealth of Nations by Riane Eisler:

The theories of both Smith and Marx and Engels made enormous contributions to our understanding of economics. But because they came out of societies that had only moved a few steps toward a partnership system, the scope of what they examined and proposed did not go far enough…Neither of these economic theories achieved their goal of creating an economy that works for the greater good of all. Nor could this goal have been achieved in the context of societies still largely orienting to the domination system, where social and economic structures as well as cultural values maintain top-down rankings of domination and inhibit caring practices and policies. (end quote)

Basically, our understanding of economics fundamentally focuses on the WRONG THINGS, because we’re still operating under assumptions that prioritize the needs of some people over the needs of others. A healthy society should not emphasize or encourage domination or top-down rankings in pursuit of profit or power and control, but instead requires an economic system that prioritizes optimal human development. You hear a lot today about how the future of work is all about creativity, imagination, and collaboration, human skills that AI cannot replicate. Which means if we want to talk about economic success, we shouldn’t be focusing solely on the means of production, or the monetary income per person, but instead we should be developing the capabilities of each person. None of the economic systems I just discussed prioritizes this human development, this emphasis on moving beyond basic survival needs to making sure that each person is living their fullest creative potential. And we know, based on decades of neuroscience and psychology, that in order for adults to develop into fully capable humans, they need to receive quality care as children, with secure attachments. So any conversation about economics should absolutely include a discussion about caring for one another, especially caring for children.

Here’s another quote from Eisler:

Once we recognize the importance of caring in economics, we also see that many of our social and environmental problems are the result of economic rules, practices, and policies that promote, and often even require, a lack of caring. That most economics don’t mention caring is appalling. It is, however, understandable, since the two theories that shaped modern economics came out of times when most people accepted the superiority of men over women, and with this, the devaluation of anything considered ‘feminine’ rather than ‘masculine’ - including caring and caregiving.

While Smith expected women to selflessly care for others, he saw this woman's work” as unproductive and considered women’s subordination natural. Despite their ambivalence about what they called the ‘woman question,’ Marx and Engels did condemn male dominance. But rather than recognizing the value of women’s economic contributions on the home, they too relegated the work of caregiving to ‘reproduction’ rather than production.” end quote

So, what can we do to create an economy that truly works for the greater good of all? One that prioritizes optimal human development and fosters collaboration, creativity, and compassion? How can we redefine success not solely in terms of monetary income or production, but in terms of human flourishing and fulfillment?

Moreover, how do we challenge the deeply ingrained societal norms that devalue caregiving and perpetuate gender inequalities? How can we elevate the importance of caring in economics and recognize the essential contributions of caregivers, especially mothers, to our society?

To address the inequities embedded in any of the current economic systems, alternative paradigms must be considered. So let’s talk about a couple of alternative economic systems that have already been in place for thousands of years that might offer some solutions - the gift economy and the sharing economy.
Gift & Sharing economy

The gift economy, also known as the gift culture or gift exchange, is a social system based on the voluntary giving and sharing of goods, services, and resources without the expectation of immediate or direct compensation. While it may seem like a novel concept in modern times, the gift economy has deep historical roots and has been practiced by various societies for thousands of years.

Anthropologists have documented the existence of gift economies in indigenous cultures around the world, including among Indigenous peoples of North America, Pacific Islanders, and Indigenous Australians. These societies often operate on principles of reciprocity and mutual aid, where individuals exchange gifts to strengthen social bonds, demonstrate generosity, and ensure the well-being of the community as a whole.

Unlike in market-based economies where transactions are mediated by currency and market prices, gift exchanges are guided by principles of trust, gratitude, and social obligation. Gifts may take various forms, including material goods, labor, knowledge, or acts of kindness.

We see the gift economy today obviously in things like baby showers and hand-me-downs, also in things like meal trains for new parents.

The gift economy operates on the principle of abundance rather than scarcity, emphasizing the idea that resources are shared and distributed according to need rather than individual accumulation. In a gift economy, mothers may benefit in various ways. Firstly, the emphasis on mutual support and collective responsibility can alleviate the burden of childcare and domestic labor by fostering networks of care and assistance within the community. Mothers may receive support from relatives, neighbors, or other community members, allowing them to share childcare responsibilities and access resources and assistance when needed.

Additionally, the gift economy challenges the commodification of caregiving and domestic work by recognizing the intrinsic value of these activities within the context of social relationships and community well-being. Instead of viewing caregiving solely as unpaid labor or a burden, the gift economy acknowledges the importance of nurturing and supporting others as essential aspects of human relationships and community life.

Another example is the sharing economy, also known as collaborative consumption or peer-to-peer sharing, which is a socio-economic system based on the sharing, renting, or lending of goods, services, and resources among individuals or groups. Indigenous cultures, such as the Inuit communities in the Arctic and the Hmong people in Southeast Asia, have long practiced systems of sharing and reciprocity to ensure the well-being of their communities. Examples include sharing food, shelter, tools, and knowledge among members of the community based on principles of mutual aid and cooperation.

Contemporary examples of sharing economies include platforms like Airbnb, which allow individuals to rent out their homes or spare rooms to travelers, and car-sharing services like Zipcar, where members can access vehicles on a short-term basis. Other examples include coworking spaces, community gardens, tool libraries, and time banks, where members exchange services or skills based on mutual needs and interests.

The sharing economy operates on principles of access over ownership, and uses technology and social networks to facilitate the efficient distribution of resources and assets. Instead of owning and maintaining underutilized goods or resources, individuals can share or access them as needed, reducing waste and promoting sustainability.

For mothers, the sharing economy offers several potential benefits. Firstly, it provides access to a wide range of goods and services without the need for ownership, allowing mothers to access childcare services, household items, transportation, and other resources on a flexible basis. For example, mothers can utilize car-sharing services for transportation without the financial burden of owning a car, or they can access shared childcare arrangements to support each other in balancing work and family responsibilities.

Additionally, the sharing economy fosters community connections and social networks, providing opportunities for mothers to connect with other parents, neighbors, and local organizations. Through shared resources and collaborative initiatives, mothers can support each other, share knowledge and experiences, and build stronger support networks within their communities.

Furthermore, the sharing economy promotes sustainability and resource efficiency by maximizing the use of existing assets and reducing consumption. By sharing goods and services rather than owning them individually, mothers can minimize their environmental footprint and contribute to a more sustainable way of living for future generations.

Both of these economies involve non-monetary transactions based on cooperation, social bonds, and collective well-being. The gift economy operates on the principle of reciprocity and altruism, where goods, services, and resources are freely given without the expectation of immediate or direct repaymen, while the sharing economy relies on the sharing of underutilized assets or resources for mutual benefit, often facilitated by digital platforms and mediated by market mechanisms. Both models offer alternatives to traditional market-based economies and promote values of community, sustainability, and social connection, all of which would serve mothers better.

Okay! So, hopefully this episode was a helpful framework to understand better how economics affects motherhood. It’s starting to become clear to many that traditional economic systems like capitalism, socialism, and communism have some inherent flaws when it comes to meeting the diverse needs of mothers and families. However, by exploring alternative economic paradigms such as the gift economy and the sharing economy, we find potential solutions that prioritize human flourishing, collaboration, and compassion.

As we continue to explore the intersection of economics and motherhood, it is essential to consider these alternative paradigms and their potential to reshape our understanding of value, labor, and human flourishing in the pursuit of a more just and equitable world for all.