《Feminist Perspectives on Class and Work》Reading Notes ——by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

3. First Wave Feminist Analyses of Women and Work

Those feminist analyses which have highlighted the role of women’s work in the social construction of gender and the perpetuation of male dominance have been termed liberal, radical, Marxist, and socialist feminism by such influential categorizers as Jaggar and Rothenberg [Struhl] (1978), Tong (2000), Barrett (1980), Jaggar (1983) and Walby (1990)[2]. However, the pigeonhole categories of liberal, radical, Marxist, or socialist categories apply poorly to both to first wave women’s movement feminist predecessors and contemporary deconstructionist, post-structuralist and post-colonialist perspectives.

5. The Public/Private Split and Its Implications

Noting that women workers on average only have about 70% of the average salary of men in the contemporary U.S., feminists have claimed this is because women’s work, tied stereotypically to housework and hence thought unskilled is undervalued, whether it is cleaning or rote service work, or nurturing work thought to be connected to natural maternal motivations and aptitudes.

Women’s work 为主语

Many radical feminists maintain that women’s work is part of a separate patriarchal mode of reproduction that underlies all economic systems of production and in which men exploit women’s reproductive labor (Delphy 1984; O’Brien 1981; Leghorn and Parker 1981; Rich 1980; Mies 1986). Smith (1974), O’Brien (1981), Hartsock (1983 a, b), Haraway (1985) and Harding (1986) pioneered in combining this radical feminist assumption with a perspectival Marxist theory of knowledge to argue that one’s relation to the work of production and reproduction gave each gender and each social class a different way of knowing the social totality. Women’s work, they argued, ties them to nature and human needs in a different way than men’s work does, which creates the possibility of a less alienated and more comprehensive understanding of the workings of the social totality.

Writing in a post-modernist re-articulation of this feminist standpoint theory, Donna Haraway argues that the breakdown of the nature/culture distinction because of scientific technology and its alteration of the human body makes us into “cyborgs”. Hence our perspectives are so intersectional that they cannot be unified simply by a common relation to work. What is required for a feminist politics is not a situated identity politics, whether of gender and/or race and/or class, but an affinity politics based on alliances and coalitions that combine epistemic perspectives (Haraway 1985).

She (Rubin a socialist-feminist ) (Rubin 1975; Hartmann 1978, 1981a, b) is hopeful that since capitalism shifted the organization of the economy from kinship to commodity production, the power of fathers and husbands over daughters and wives, and the ability to enforce heterosexuality, will continue to decline, and women’s increasing ability to be economically independent will lead to women’s liberation and equality with men.

With a different historical twist, Hartmann argues that a historical bargain was cemented between capitalist and working class male patriarchs to shore up patriarchal privileges that were being weakened by the entrance of women into wage labor in the 19th century by the creation of the “family wage” to allow men sufficient wages to support a non-wage-earning wife and children at home (1981a). While Ferguson and Folbre (1981) agree that there is no inevitable fit between capitalism and patriarchy, they argue that there are conflicts, and that the family wage bargain has broken down at present. Indeed, both Ferguson and Smart (1984) argue that welfare state capitalism and the persistent sexual division of wage labor in which work coded as women’s is paid less than men’s with less job security are ways that a “public patriarchy” has replaced different systems of family patriarchy that were operating in early and pre-capitalist societies. Walby (1990) has a similar analysis, but to her the connection between forms of capitalism and forms of patriarchy is more functional and less accidental than it appears to Ferguson and Smart.

But Ferguson (1989,1991), Smart (1984) and Folbre (1994) suggest that although the patriarchal control of fathers and husbands over wife and children as economic assets has been diminished in advanced capitalism, there is always a dialectical and contradictory tension between patriarchy and capitalism in which both advances and retreats for women’s equality as citizens and in work relations are constantly occurring in the new form of public patriarchy. Thus, the new “marriage” of patriarchal capitalism operates to relegate women to unpaid or lesser paid caring labor, whether in the household or in wage labor, thus keeping women by and large unequal to men. This is especially notable in the rise of poor single-mother-headed families. However, as it forces more and more women into wage labor, women are given opportunities for some independence from men and the possibility to challenge male dominance and sex segregation in all spheres of social life. Examples are the rise of the first and second wave women’s movements and consequent gains in civil rights for women.

6. Psychological Theories of Women and Work

Ruddick from a more Aristotelian perspective suggests that it is the skills and virtues required in the practice of mothering work which not only socially construct feminine gender differently from men’s, but could ground an alternative vision for peace and resolving human conflicts, if a peace movement were led by women.

Ferguson argues that gendered exploitation in a system of meeting human needs suggests that women can be seen as a “sex class” (or gender class) which cuts across economic class lines (1979, 1989, 1991). This line of thought is also developed by Christine Delphy (1984), Monique Wittig (1980) and Luce Irigaray (1975).

Ferguson argues that the “sex/affective” work of mothering and wifely nurturing is exploitative of women: women give more nurturance and satisfaction (including sexual satisfaction) to men and children than they receive, and do much more of the work of providing these important human goods (cf. also Bartky 1990). The gendered division of labor has both economic and psychological consequences, since women’s caring labor creates women less capable of or motivated to separate from others, and hence less likely to protest such gender exploitation (Ferguson 1989, 1991). Folbre argues by contrast that it is only because women’s bargaining power is less than men’s because of the power relations involved in the gender division of labor and property that women acquiesce to such inequalities (Folbre 1982). Ferguson argues that gendered exploitation in a system of meeting human needs suggests that women can be seen as a “sex class” (or gender class) which cuts across economic class lines (1979, 1989, 1991). This line of thought is also developed by Christine Delphy (1984), Monique Wittig (1980) and Luce Irigaray (1975).

kmichat 的翻译：

弗格森指出，女性所承担的“性/情感”劳动——母职与妻职中的养育与情感维系——对她们构成剥削：她们给予男性与子女的关怀与满足（包括性满足）远多于自身所得，却承担了提供这些重要人类善品的绝大部分工作（参见巴特基 Bartky 1990）。
这种性别化分工兼具经济与心理效应：女性的照护劳动使其更难、也更少动机与他人分离，从而更不可能抗议这种性别剥削（Ferguson 1989, 1991）。

福尔布雷则对比认为，女性之所以默认这些不平等，并非出于“能力不足”，而是因为性别化的劳动与财产分工削弱了她们的议价能力——一旦权力关系改变，她们便无需顺从（Folbre 1982）。

弗格森进一步提出，在满足人类需求的体系中，性别剥削使女性可被视为跨越经济阶级界限的“性阶级”（或曰性别阶级）（1979, 1989, 1991）。
这一思路亦由克里斯蒂娜·戴尔菲（Christine Delphy 1984）、莫妮克·维蒂格（Monique Wittig 1980）与露丝·伊里格瑞（Luce Irigaray 1975）等学者加以发展。

kimi 这波杀疯了

On the other side of the debate, Brenner (2000) argues that women are not uniformly exploited by men across economic class lines: indeed, for working class women their unpaid work as housewives serves the working class as a whole, because the whole class benefits when its daily and future reproduction needs are met by women’s nurturing and childcare work. They argue further that middle and upper class women’s economic privileges will inevitably lead them to betray working class women in any cross-class alliance that is not explicitly anti-capitalist. Hochschild (2000) and hooks (2000) point out that career women tend to pay working class women to do the second shift work in the home so they can avoid that extra work, and they have an interest in keeping such wages, e.g., for house cleaning and nannies, as low as possible to keep the surplus for themselves. Kollias (1981) argues further that working class women are in a stronger political position to work effectively for women’s liberation than middle class women, while McKenny (1981) argues that professional women have to overcome myths of professionalism that keep them feeling superior to working class women and hence unable to learn from or work with them for social change.

在这场辩论的另一侧，布伦纳（Brenner 2000）指出，女性并非跨越经济阶级地普遍受男性剥削：对工人阶级女性而言，她们作为家庭主妇的无薪劳动服务于整个工人阶级——当女性的养育与 childcare 满足整个阶级的日常与再生产需求时，男性工人同样受益。
她们进一步指出，若跨阶级联盟不鲜明地反资本主义，中上阶层女性的经济特权终将使她们背叛工人阶级女性。

霍克希尔德（Hochschild 2000）与胡克斯（hooks 2000）指出，职业女性往往雇用工人阶级女性承担“第二班”家务，以便自己脱身；她们有利益驱动尽量压低清洁工、保姆等工资，把剩余价值留给自己。

科利亚斯（Kollias 1981）更认为，工人阶级女性在争取女性解放的政治行动中处于比中产阶级女性更有力的位置；而麦肯尼（McKenny 1981）指出，职业女性必须首先克服“专业神话”带来的优越感，才能与工人阶级女性相互学习、共同推进社会变革。

7. Ethical Theories of Women’s Caring Work

Carol Gilligan (1982) claims that women and girls tend to use a different form of ethical reasoning — she terms this the “ethics of care” — than men and boys who use an ethics of justice. Some have argued that this different ethical approach is due to women’s caring sensibilities that have been developed by the sexual division of labor (Ruddick 1989). Interestingly, the debate between feminist theorists of justice, e.g., Fraser and Okin, and ethics of care feminists such as Gilligan and Ruddick, is less about substance than a meta-ethical dispute as to whether ethics should concern principles or judgments in particular cases. All of these theorists seem to have ideal visions of society which dovetail: all would support the elimination of the sexual division of labor so that both men and women could become equally sensitized to particular others through caring work.

卡罗尔·吉利根（Carol Gilligan，1982）提出，女性与女孩倾向于运用一种不同于男性与男孩的伦理推理方式——她称之为“关怀伦理”；后者则偏好“正义伦理”。
一些学者认为，这种差异源于性别化劳动分工所培育出的女性关怀气质（Ruddick，1989）。

有趣的是，女性主义“正义论”者（如弗雷泽、奥金）与“关怀伦理”者（如吉利根、拉迪克）之间的争论，焦点并不在实质结论，而在元伦理层面：伦理学应关注普遍原则，还是应关注具体情境中的判断？

事实上，这些理论家的理想社会图景彼此衔接：她们都主张消除性别化劳动分工，使男女都能通过关怀工作同等地培养对具体他者的敏感与责任。

Asha Bhandary (2020) proposes an integrative approach, enlargening the Rawlsian distributive justice theory with liberal dependency care. Taking into account Eva Feder Kittay’s (2019, 1998) emphasis on human dependency, Bhandary argues that Rawls’s framework must be expanded to include caring considerations as part of the basic structure of society. To address feminist critiques, she adds that boys must be taught the value of care work and voluntary participation in it. Bhandary develops an arrow of care map to account for distributive inequalities (race, class, etc.) within countries and cross-culturally. In Meaningful Work, Andrea Veltman (2016) also provides a liberal normative account of care, endorsing Paul Gomberg’s (2007) concept of contributive justice, where each community and family member pulls together voluntarily using a system of job rotation, rather than relying on state provisions of goods.

阿莎·班达里（Asha Bhandary，2020）提出一种整合方案：用“自由主义的依赖照护”拓展罗尔斯的分配正义理论。借助伊娃·费德·基泰（Eva Feder Kittay，2019，1998）对人类依赖性的强调，班达里主张必须把“照护考量”纳入社会基本结构，以补正罗尔斯框架。为回应女性主义批评，她进一步指出，必须从小教育男孩认识照护劳动的价值，并鼓励其自愿参与。班达里还绘制了“照护箭头图”，用以说明各国内部及跨文化间的分配不平等（种族、阶级等）。

在《有意义的工作》（Meaningful Work）中，安德烈娅·韦尔特曼（Andrea Veltman，2016）同样提供了一种自由主义取向的照护规范，她赞同保罗·贡伯格（Paul Gomberg，2007）的“贡献正义”概念：社区与家庭成员通过自愿的轮岗制度共同分担任务，而非依赖国家提供物品。

以下是针对您问题的详细解释，我将分两部分阐述：首先介绍“罗尔斯的分配正义理论”，然后解释“自由主义的依赖照护”，并结合阿莎·班达里（Asha Bhandary）和安德烈娅·韦尔特曼（Andrea Veltman）的观点进行说明。这些概念均涉及政治哲学和女性主义理论，旨在扩展传统自由主义框架以涵盖照护劳动和依赖性。

一、罗尔斯的分配正义理论（Rawlsian Theory of Distributive Justice）
罗尔斯的分配正义理论由美国哲学家约翰·罗尔斯（John Rawls）在其 1971 年著作《正义论》（A Theory of Justice）中提出。该理论旨在构建一个公平的社会基本结构，确保社会合作中的利益和负担得到公正分配。罗尔斯的核心思想基于“作为公平的正义”（justice as fairness），并通过以下关键元素展开：

原初状态与无知之幕（Original Position and Veil of Ignorance）：

罗尔斯设计了一个思想实验，即“原初状态”，假设人们在选择社会正义原则时处于“无知之幕”之后。这意味着他们不知道自己的社会地位、阶级、性别、种族、能力、宗教信仰或个人生活计划等具体信息。这种设计确保了选择过程的公平性，因为人们会避免偏向特定群体，从而选择对所有人都有利的原则。

例如，如果你不知道自己是富人还是穷人，你会更倾向于支持一个保护弱势群体的制度。

两个正义原则（Two Principles of Justice）：

第一原则：平等自由原则（Principle of Equal Liberty）
每个人对最广泛的基本自由体系都拥有平等的权利，这种自由体系与所有人的类似自由体系相容。基本自由包括政治自由（如投票权）、言论自由、良心自由、人身自由和财产权等。这一原则优先于第二原则，意味着自由不能为经济利益而牺牲。

第二原则：社会和经济不平等的安排（Principle of Distributive Justice）
该原则包括两部分：

公平的机会平等（Fair Equality of Opportunity）：社会职位和机会应向所有人开放，不仅形式上的开放，而且确保每个人有公平的起点（例如通过教育消除阶级壁垒）。

差异原则（Difference Principle）：社会和经济的不平等应被安排成对最不利者（least advantaged）最有利。例如，财富分配的不平等只有当它能改善最贫困群体的处境时才是可接受的。这体现了“最大最小化”（maximin）逻辑，即最大化最小受益者的福利。

基本善（Primary Goods）：

罗尔斯将“基本善”定义为每个理性人都需要的东西，无论其具体生活计划如何。这些包括权利、自由、机会、收入、财富以及自尊的社会基础。分配正义的目标是确保这些基本善的公平分配。

然而，罗尔斯的理论主要关注公共领域的分配，如政治权利和经济资源，而忽略了私人领域（如家庭）和依赖关系（如照护劳动）。这后来成为女性主义批评的焦点。

批评与局限：

女性主义者（如苏珊·奥金、伊娃·基泰）指出，罗尔斯的理论假设个人是独立、自主的理性主体，但现实中人类普遍存在依赖性（如儿童、老人、病患需要照护）。罗尔斯未将照护劳动视为“基本善”，也未考虑家庭内部的性别不平等，导致理论无法解决照护工作的分配问题。

此外，罗尔斯的框架侧重于国家层面的分配，而忽略了社区和家庭层面的自愿合作。

二、自由主义的依赖照护（Liberal Dependency Care）
“自由主义的依赖照护”是阿莎·班达里在 2020 年提出的整合方案，旨在用依赖照护概念拓展罗尔斯的分配正义理论。她借鉴了伊娃·费德·基泰（Eva Feder Kittay）的依赖理论（强调人类天生是依赖性的，照护劳动是社会再生产的核心），并将照护纳入自由主义框架。以下是详细解释：

核心概念：

依赖性（Dependency）：基泰认为，人类在生命周期的各个阶段（如婴儿期、老年期、疾病期）都依赖他人的照护。照护劳动（如育儿、护理）是社会运行的基础，但传统上被低估且主要由女性无偿承担。

自由主义的依赖照护：班达里主张，在自由主义社会基本结构中，应正式承认依赖性和照护劳动的价值，并将其视为分配正义的一部分。这不同于完全拒绝自由主义，而是通过内部修正来包容照护问题。

关键点：照护不应被视为私人领域的事务，而应作为公共正义问题，通过社会制度（如教育、政策）确保其公平分配。

如何整合到罗尔斯理论中：

将照护视为基本善：班达里提出，照护应被纳入罗尔斯的“基本善”列表，类似于自由、机会和财富。这意味着照护资源的分配应遵循差异原则——确保最需要照护的群体（如残疾人、贫困家庭）获得充分支持。

照护箭头图（Care Arrow Diagram）：班达里绘制了可视化工具，用于分析照护劳动在社会中的分配不平等。该图显示照护如何从特定群体（如女性、少数种族、低收入阶级）流向其他群体，揭示了跨文化和社会内部的剥削模式。例如，在全球范围内，移民女性经常承担富裕家庭的照护工作，而自身家庭缺乏照护。

教育和社会化：为应对女性主义批评，班达里强调必须从小教育男孩认识照护劳动的价值，并鼓励他们自愿参与。这旨在打破性别刻板印象，促进照护劳动的性别平等分配。

与安德烈娅·韦尔特曼的观点对比：

在《有意义的工作》中，韦尔特曼也提供了一种自由主义取向的照护规范，但她更侧重于“贡献正义”（contributive justice），这一概念源自保罗·贡伯格。

贡献正义：强调社区和家庭成员通过自愿轮岗制度共同分担照护任务，而非依赖国家直接提供物品。这体现了自由主义对个人自主和社区合作的重视，避免过度国家干预。

与班达里的共同点：两者都试图在自由主义框架内整合照护，但班达里更强调国家在确保照护分配公平性的作用，而韦尔特曼更强调基层自愿行动。

实际意义：

自由主义的依赖照护呼吁政策改革，如提供带薪照护假、公共托儿服务、照护者补贴等，以将照护工作社会化。

它补正了罗尔斯理论的缺陷，使正义理论更全面涵盖人类实际需求。

总结

罗尔斯的分配正义理论：是一个基于原初状态和无知之幕的框架，强调基本善（如自由、机会、财富）的公平分配，但忽略依赖关系和照护劳动。

自由主义的依赖照护：是班达里提出的扩展方案，将照护视为基本善，并通过社会基本结构确保其公平分配，同时结合教育和社会化来促进性别平等。

通过这种整合，班达里和韦尔特曼等学者使自由主义正义理论更能应对现实世界中的依赖性和照护不平等问题。

By contrast, the authors of the Care Manifesto (Chatzidakis et al., 2020) build on political theorists who call for a centering of care and a decentering of economics (Tronto 2013; 1993) and a universal care giver model (Fraser, 2013) in democratic societies. Caring work is not only important at the level of interpersonal care but also at the macroscopic level of “theorising caring infrastructures and the nature of an overarching politics of care” grounded in “feminist, queer, anti-racist and eco-socialist perspective” (Chatzidakis et al., p. 22). Such perspective also critiques the exploitative nature of transnational care chains where Global North upper class women exploit the labor of women and girls from the Global South (Anderson, 2000). Reproductive labor has also become transactional and exploitative in another sense: surrogacy arrangements in the global biomarkets, where Indian women carry babies and are contractually required to give up the newborn on terms dictated by Global North couples, which may include selective abortion during pregnancy (Saravanah, 2018). By centering care in the commons, these theorists call attention to a politics of interdependence.

9. Race, Class, and Intersectional Feminist Analyses

Sylvia Walby deals with this ambiguity of economic class as applying to women as unpaid houseworkers by claiming against Delphy (1984) that the relevant economic sex classes are those who are housewives vs. those who are husbands benefiting from such work, not those of all women and men, whether or not they do or receive housework services (Walby 1990). Ferguson, however, sides with Delphy in putting all women into “sex class”, since all women, since trained into the gender roles of patriarchal wife and motherhood, are potentially those whose unpaid housework can be so exploited. But seeing herself as a member of a fourth class category, “sex class,” and hence, in a patriarchal capitalist system, seeing herself exploited as a woman worker in her wage work and unpaid second shift housework, [4] is thus not a given but an achieved social identity. Such an identity is usually formed through political organizing and coalitions with other women at her place of employment, in her home and her community. In this sense the concept of sex class is exactly analogous to the concept of a feminist epistemological standpoint: not a given identity or perspective, but one that is achievable under the right conditions.

西尔维娅·沃尔比针对经济阶级概念在承担无酬家务的女性群体中的应用困境提出解决方案。她反驳德尔菲（1984）的普遍性别阶级论，主张关键的经济性别阶级应区分为：提供家务劳动的已婚女性群体与从中获益的丈夫群体，而非笼统涵盖所有男女性别范畴（无论其是否实际承担或接受家务服务）（Walby 1990）。然而，弗格森支持德尔菲的广义“性别阶级”框架，认为所有女性自小被驯化进入父权制的妻子与母亲性别角色，本质上都处于无偿家务劳动可能被剥削的潜在状态。但将自我认同归属于“第四阶级”——即“性别阶级”——从而在父权资本主义制度下意识到自己作为女性劳动者在薪金劳动与无酬第二轮班家务中的被剥削处境 [4]，这种认知并非与生俱来，而是通过政治实践建构的社会身份。此种身份认同通常形成于工作场所、家庭与社区中与其他女性进行的政治组织与联盟实践。在此意义上，“性别阶级”概念与女性主义认识论立场具有完全相同的理论特质：二者均非既定身份或视角，而是在特定条件下通过实践达成的认知立场。

我是一位资产上亿的人民企业家，但我是无产阶级的一员，因为我可能随时破产…

Another approach to the problematic nature of socio-economic class as it relates to women are empirical studies which show how class distinctions are still important for women in their daily lives as a way to compare and contrast themselves with other women and men, even if they do not use the concepts of “working class,” “professional class” or “capitalist class”. Many have pointed out that the concept of class itself is mystified in the U.S. context, but that nonetheless class distinctions still operate because of different structural economic constraints, which act on some differently from others. The Ehrenreichs (1979), in a classic article, argue that this mystification is due to the emergence of a professional-managerial class that has some interests in common with the capitalist class and some with the working class. Whatever its causes, there are empirical studies which show that class distinctions still operate between women, albeit in an indirect way. Barbara Ehrenreich (2001), by adopting the material life conditions of a poor woman, did an empirical study of the lives of women working for minimum wages and found their issues to be quite different from and ignored by middle and upper-class women. Diane Reay (2004) does an empirical study of women from manual labor family backgrounds and their relation to the schooling of their children, and discovers that they use a discourse that acknowledges class differences of educational access and career possibilities, even though it does not specifically define these by class per se. Similarly, Julie Bettie (2000) does an impressive discourse analysis of the way that Latina high school students create their own class distinctions through concepts such as “chicas,” “cholas” and “trash” to refer to themselves and their peers. These categories pick out girls as having middle class, working class or poor aspirations by performance indicators such as dress, speech, territorial hang-outs and school achievement, while never mentioning “class” by name. Women’s experiences of growing up working class are presented in the anthology edited by Tea (2003).

民众的眼镜是雪亮的

另一种研究社会经济阶级与女性关系问题的方式来自实证研究，这些研究揭示了阶级区分如何依然在女性日常生活中发挥着重要作用——即使她们并未使用 “工人阶级” “专业阶级” 或 “资产阶级” 等概念，仍会通过阶级维度与其他女性和男性进行比较。许多学者指出，虽然 “阶级” 概念在美国语境中被模糊化，但由于不同群体面临相异的结构性经济约束，阶级区分仍在持续运作。埃伦赖希夫妇（1979）在经典论文中提出，这种概念模糊源于专业管理阶级的出现，该阶级既与资产阶级存在共同利益，又与工人阶级有部分利益重合。

实证研究证实，无论成因如何，阶级差异确实在女性间持续运作，尽管以间接方式呈现。芭芭拉·埃伦赖希（2001）通过亲身体验贫困女性的物质生活条件，对最低工资女性劳动者开展实证研究，发现她们面临的议题与中上层阶级女性截然不同且被后者忽视。黛安·雷伊（2004）对体力劳动家庭背景的女性及其子女教育关系进行实证研究，发现这些母亲会使用承认教育机会与职业发展存在阶级差异的话语体系，即便未明确采用阶级术语。朱莉·贝蒂（2000）对拉丁裔高中生的话语分析更具启发性：她们通过 “时尚女孩” “街头女孩” “底层女孩” 等分类建构隐性阶级区分，这些类别通过着装、言谈、活动场域与学业表现等绩效指标，将女孩划分为隐含中产、工人阶级、胸无大志等群体，却始终不直接提及 “阶级”。蒂娅（2003）主编的文集则真实呈现了工人阶级家庭女性成长历程的集体记忆。

10. Anarchist Perspectives on Work and its Other

So far, it has been assumed that work is an intrinsic good.

What if waged or unwaged work itself were to be considered problematic or oppressive? Autonomous Marxists contest that liberal or socialist feminist perspectives have unnecessarily mystified work and have operated with a moralism. Autonomists are associated with the Operaismo, post-Operaismo and Autonomia movements, the Midnight Notes Collective, Zerowork, Lotta Feminista, and the Wages for Housework movement (Weeks 2011, 241). Whether one ought to be paid for housework or reproductive labor or seek equal employment opportunities, feminists have not sufficiently opposed the sanctification of work. Championing the refusal of work means to abandon a narrow focus on the critique of the extraction of surplus value or of the process of deskilling. Furthermore, it is imperative to interrogate how work dominates our lives (Weeks 2011, 13). Kathi Weeks charges that a productivist bias is common to feminist and Marxist analysis. The credo of autonomists then is liberation from work, in contradistinction to Marxist humanists such as Erich Fromm’s advocacy for liberation of work.

至此，我们一直默认劳动本身具有内在价值。

但若将有薪或无薪劳动本身视为问题重重或具有压迫性呢？自主马克思主义者提出异议：自由主义与社会主义女性主义视角不必要地美化了劳动，并带有道德说教倾向。自主派思想关联于意大利工人主义、后工人主义与自治主义运动，午夜笔记集体、零工运动、女性斗争团体及 “家务劳动计薪” 运动（Weeks 2011, 241）。无论主张家务或再生产劳动应获报酬，还是追求平等就业机会，女性主义者都未充分挑战劳动的神圣化光环。倡导 “拒绝劳动” 意味着超越对剩余价值榨取或技能退化过程的核心批判，更关键的是质询劳动如何支配我们的生活（Weeks 2011, 13）。凯西·维克斯指认女性主义与马克思主义分析普遍存在生产主义偏见。自主主义者的信条是实现从劳动中解放——这与埃里希·弗洛姆等马克思主义人道主义者主张通过劳动获得解放的立场形成鲜明对照。

意大利理论（南京大学实践与文本乱入意大利理论-实践与文本）

在对非物质劳动概念的界定上，更能够看到这一点。在自治主义马克思主义阵营里，首先提出并系统研究“非物质劳动”概念的是拉扎拉托，他最为重要的论文《非物质劳动》明显影响了哈特与奈格里。按按拉扎拉托的说法，非物质劳动是指“生产商品信息和文化内容的劳动”，生产商品信息内容的劳动指在工业和第三产业中大公司里的工人与计算机、通讯网络沟通的劳动，它不直接生产出商品，而是获取、传递商品生产所需的信息；文化内容的劳动则是指“界定和确定文化与艺术标准、时尚、品味、消费指针以及更具有策略性的公众舆论等不同信息项目的活动” 。在《帝国》中，两位作者主要借用的就是这个概念，他们明确地将非物质劳动界定为“生产非物质商品的劳动”，并将其分为三种类型：已经被信息化和被融会了先进通讯技术的大工业生产劳动；分析创造性的和日常象征性的劳动；人类交际和互动的情感性劳动。在这里，哈特和奈格里的这一概念显然还不够成熟化，也没有进一步发挥，甚至本身都有一定的问题，比如信息化的大工业生产劳动只是说明了劳动工具的改进，生产出来的当然还是物质化的商品，这与概念不符。

这一点在《大众》中得到了修正，这本书依然把非物质劳动界定为“生产非物质产品，比如知识、信息、交流、关系或一种情感反应的劳动” ，并把它划分为两种主要的形式：第一种形式主要是指智力的或语言的劳动，比如问题的解决，象征的和分析的任务，语言的表达，它所生产的是观念、符号、规则、文本、语言图形、想象以及其他这样的产品；第二种形式是“情感劳动”，生产的是放松、幸福、满足、兴奋或激情这样的情感。为了讲清楚，他们更指出两种形式的劳动在具体的工作中会出现夹杂的现象，并与劳动的物质形式重叠，包含在非物质产品中的劳动依然是物质的，非物质的只是它的产品。他们还建议把非物质劳动理解为“生命政治劳动”（biopolitical labor），意指“不仅创造物质财富而且创造关系和社会生活自身的劳动”。这里显然又有概念上的混淆，非物质劳动生产非物质产品，而生命政治劳动却包括生产物质财富，又自相矛盾。实际上，马克思的劳动已经正确揭示出来劳动的物质形式与非物质形式的并存，偏偏要把劳动区分为物质劳动和非物质劳动本身是不可能的，正像英国学者肖恩•塞耶斯在对马克思的劳动观研究的基础上所说的，“就像所有的非物质劳动必需涉及物质活动一样，所有的物质劳动都具有一种非物质的方面，因为它不仅改造了直接作用的物质对象，也改造了社会关系和主体性。在物质和非物质劳动之间并不存在清晰的差别，诉诸‘生命政治活动’的概念也没有任何帮助。”

尽管非物质劳动本身的界定模糊，但这不排除他们从这里推出大众。因为在非物质劳动形式的霸权下，不再是传统意义上的无产阶级的劳动直接受到资本的剥削，曾经不属于无产阶级范畴的农民、移民、妇女等社会群体的劳动都直接受到资本的剥削。面对资本的逻辑，面对新的剥削形式，这些群体以一种更为显著的方式创造了共同的关联和共同的社会形式，以更为主动的合作而构成了大众，一个更具有包容性、更能抵抗资本统治的大范围无产阶级生成了。一方面，在非物质劳动形式下，资本主义的剥削无论从广度还是从深度上都有所增强，资本统治的逻辑更为严密。广度而言，它几乎统治了全球的所有空间，几乎成为所有劳动必然采取或即将的形式。工业劳动、农业劳动都服从于它的霸权，工人阶级、农民劳动都体现出非物质性的特征，其他社会主体的劳动呈现共同性，农民、穷人、移民等这些曾经作为无产阶级的附属阶层消失了，成为相似的劳动者。就深度而言，非物质劳动取消了每个人的劳动时间与生活时间的区分，像思想、观念这些非产品的生产劳动在日常休闲生活（而不是工作）中都可能在进行，它渗透到所有人的生活中，甚至肉体与心灵中，资本榨取的不再是劳动力在特定时间、特定场所的劳动，而是整个劳动力自身，是所有劳动者的劳动力自身，这是马克思所没有预料到的。

但归根结底的问题是，非物质劳动并不是一个最根本的概念，最基础性的概念或者是奈格里所说的本体论的概念，它只是对劳动形式中出现的表象的经验总结，劳动最终要生产出的还是物质化的产品，非物质劳动本身不能最终代替整个劳动，我们不可能生活在一个非物质劳动的世界，用标新立异的概念颠覆马克思的劳动观来推出大众，注定让大众站不住脚。退一步讲，存在所谓的非物质劳动，作为新的政治主体得以滋生的社会经济基础，但它也不能推出大众这种全球无产阶级。因为非物质劳动在量上并不占优势，它毕竟还是只有少部分发达资本主义国家的工业从事这种劳动，并不是遍及所有的国家（也永远不会），全球空间的劳动者还是要进行物质性的劳动，因为只有不断生产出物质性的产品，才能从根本上维系社会的存在与发展，用一个在量上没有占统治地位的、有限的非物质劳动来证明一个全球性的、无限的大众主体只能是一个尚待商榷的问题。

综上所述，自治主义马克思主义对马克思的非物质劳动理论的过度诠释给我们的有力启示是：马克思主义当代性问题研究要从重新激活基本概念与方法论开始。马克思主义重大发展的突破口经常是在原有经典问题中处于次要的、无意识状态的问题，是在现实的不断激化与强化中改弦更张的新问题。马克思主义最需要研究的问题肯定是或经常是经典论述中比较含糊的、比较抽象的、比较次要的问题，所以没有现成的原理直接可用。马克思根据自己的时代理解而超越资本主义那个时代的局限性，提出了相应的科学社会主义未来蓝图，但这个超越与展望，并不是一桩立竿见影、一蹴而就、一劳永逸的事业，而是需要通过不断的发明、批判与反思才成为可能的漫长过程。比如，马克思所预见到的而在今天已经基本实现的生产自动化与智能化，在他的问题视野中曾经是超越了资本主义物质生产过程与资本生产关系历史局限性的“未来的人类广阔自由前景”，在今天看来仍然是资本主义生产方式的高级形态对低级形态的替代——这就是：当代资本主义已经实现了非物质劳动剥削形式的普遍化，从而取代了早期资本主义对物质劳动过程的直接统治形式；当代资本主义已经实现了对人的生命力的全面控制，从而取代了马克思那个时代资本主义对人的生产劳动力的有限约束。

今天马克思主义要研究的问题是马克思虽天才地提出、却并没有真正见证的问题。诸如：资本主义统治方式与重心如何从形式向实质、从抽象向具体、从物质关系向精神文化方面转移？资本主义的统治方式如何从固定的地方性、民族性、有形的国家机器暴力控制，转变为流动型、全球性、网络化的隐形意识形态规训？这些新现象新现实，与其说是资本主义发展所带来的客观上的历史进步，毋宁说是资本主义从宏观到微观、从经济政治到日常生活道德心理的统治逻辑的逐步完善与完成。在更深层、更隐藏的现代性异化统治形式中寻找未来人类更高级、更全面的自由发展的可能性，在批判旧世界中发现新世界，在改造旧世界中认识新世界，这仍然是一个具有广泛感召力的真理。

换言之，生命政治成为可能，在于生命体作为劳动力而存在，从这个劳动力身上能获得比他固有价值的更多的价值，福柯的生命政治因此在马克思的劳动力这儿得到了解释。哈特、奈格里也有相同的思路，他们一方面认为从规训社会向控制社会的转变——生命权力出现的社会形态——正是当代资本主义追逐剩余价值的必然结果，是资本对劳动力从形式吸纳向实质吸纳的过渡。但奈格里所理解的资本的实质吸纳“不仅包裹了社会的经济或文化维度，而且包裹了整个社会有机体”，它是对整个市民社会的吸纳，是对所有在资本逻辑中的劳动者工作时间和生活时间的吸纳，它就是资本对劳动者的控治，对劳动者身体、灵魂、意识的完全支配，这与马克思所说的在资本主义的冲击下从手工劳动向工业劳动转变的实质吸纳明显不同

非物质劳动正是生命权力的“经济基础”，它的网络的、流动的形式，依靠交流的、合作的、语言的、情感的特征，对劳动者生活时间（休闲时间）的占据，最重要是它虽不生产商品，却生产非物质的观念、形象、交流方式、情感或社会关系实际上就是生活自身的生产和再生产，这都完全对应于生命权力对个人身体、意识，对社会关系、社会生活的操纵与控制，当非物质劳动穿透每个人的身体与灵魂时，穿透社会生活本身时，生命权力也同样如此。生命政治所强调的就是 非物质劳动生产一种生活，强调的是一种对社会关系的组织方式，它建构社会生活，生产出社会合作，这就是对社会本身的生产。