1002:2022:6.2
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 1002:2022:6.2 [2022/08/31 20:50] – [Families in global capitalism have responded to the breakdown of the Fordist social contract in different and unequal ways] Ryan Schram (admin) | 1002:2022:6.2 [2022/09/01 16:31] (current) – [References and further reading] Ryan Schram (admin) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| * To be successful, mass production depends on the mass consumption of highly standardized goods, e.g. cars, home applicances. | * To be successful, mass production depends on the mass consumption of highly standardized goods, e.g. cars, home applicances. | ||
| * The Fordist industrial model is also a new social contract, a new normative idea of people’s entitlements and obligations as members of the society. | * The Fordist industrial model is also a new social contract, a new normative idea of people’s entitlements and obligations as members of the society. | ||
| - | * Mass production also depends on mass employment of low-skill labor, creating opportunities for greater social mobility and wealth accumulation (mostly for whites in the US). | + | * Mass production also depends on mass employment of low-skill labor, creating opportunities for greater social mobility and wealth accumulation (mostly for whites in the US; see Florida and Feldman 1988). |
| * Mass employment creates greater collective power for the labor movement, who claim more and more of a share of the profits of Fordist enterprise. | * Mass employment creates greater collective power for the labor movement, who claim more and more of a share of the profits of Fordist enterprise. | ||
| * The Fordist social contract is also a specific “sexual contract” between men and women, who must play distinct, interdependent, | * The Fordist social contract is also a specific “sexual contract” between men and women, who must play distinct, interdependent, | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| * Kinship in the Fordist “private” domain of the nuclear family is still, as Carsten might say, something people do; it’s invisible to the rest of the world since doing kinship is seen as strictly women’s work. | * Kinship in the Fordist “private” domain of the nuclear family is still, as Carsten might say, something people do; it’s invisible to the rest of the world since doing kinship is seen as strictly women’s work. | ||
| - | * Even as the Fordist social contract collapses, people still adhere to this ideological representation of kinship as private. Women who work in dual-income households still do most if not all of the care work; they pull a “second shift” at home making kinship | + | * Even as the Fordist social contract collapses, people still adhere to this ideological representation of kinship as private. Women who work in dual-income households still do most if not all of the care work; they pull a “second shift” at home (Hochschild 1989). |
| ==== Families have responded to the breakdown of the Fordist social contract in different and unequal ways ==== | ==== Families have responded to the breakdown of the Fordist social contract in different and unequal ways ==== | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| Colen, Shellee. 1995. “‘Like a Mother to Them’: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York.” In // | Colen, Shellee. 1995. “‘Like a Mother to Them’: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York.” In // | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Florida, Richard L., and Marshall M.A. Feldman. 1988. “Housing in US Fordism*.” // | ||
1002/2022/6.2.1662004244.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/08/31 20:50 by Ryan Schram (admin)