Visible and invisible work in the pandemic: social reproduction and the ambivalent category of the essential worker

2Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Feminist scholars and activists have long fought to make visible the fundamental but overlooked social reproduction work performed primarily by women, often in households. Taking on black feminist criticisms of the initial prioritization of the experience of white, middle-class women, these debates have developed into a broader social reproduction theory, which emphasizes the relationality of multiple forms of oppression under capitalism. The COVID-19 pandemic, with its lockdowns, temporarily turned the traditional distribution between visible and invisible work on its head when many so-called productive workers were ushered into their homes, leaving only the most essential workers publicly visible in the streets and valorized in online spaces. The sudden visibility of these generally low-paid, often racialized and marginalized workers now coded as ‘essential’ highlighted the importance of the work of social reproduction. However, the category of essential workers was ambivalent, in that by making visible some forms of social reproduction it continued to obscure others, especially familial care work and housework. In this article we analyse the ambivalent category of the essential worker and argue that it exemplifies, as social reproduction theory attests, that the capitalist production process always requires invisible labour, even as some previously invisible forms become increasingly visible.

References Powered by Scopus

804Citations
1179Readers

This article is free to access.

Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Murtola, A. M., & Vallelly, N. (2023). Visible and invisible work in the pandemic: social reproduction and the ambivalent category of the essential worker. Journal of Gender Studies, 32(8), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2023.2219979

Readers over time

‘23‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 7

54%

Researcher 3

23%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

15%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 10

63%

Business, Management and Accounting 4

25%

Arts and Humanities 1

6%

Engineering 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0