Glenn Response

In her essay "From Servitude to Service Work: Historical Continuities in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive Labor," Evelyn Nakano Glenn explores the "social reproduction" (1) of labor.  She also attempts to dispel the notion that race and gender can be understood as separate categories.  In particular, she criticizes many Marxist feminists who view women as one unified group of oppressed people, a group that shares common experiences and ideals.   Glenn's claim makes sense, although one could easily take this point further and argue that class, nationality, and all other categories into which we place people are interrelated, and that societal relationships cannot be understood only in the context of two categories, either--but this would broaden the discussion far beyond the scope of one essay, or indeed of an entire life's work.

For the most part, Glenn argues her point convincingly by tying statistics and anecdotes into an analysis of the historical development of the labor force.  She seems to marry many of the ideas in Kessler-Harris' analysis with those in Ehrenreich's article, in that she focuses on the historical motivations for various trends in the labor force, while also concentrating specifically on domestic service and the racial divisions therein.  One thing in particular struck me: like Ehrenreich, Glenn seems to laud the institutionalization of domestic-like services (i.e., cleaning, preparing food, childcare, etc.).  Both Ehrenreich and Glenn seem to approve of the new bureaucratic structures' impersonal nature, since this gives low-paid employees greater flexibility and benefits in their jobs.  Their assessment stands in direct contrast to many writers--typically white males--who bitterly bemoaned the depersonalization of industrialization, complaining that the essential human element of labor had been replaced by a cold, cruel "machine."  In my opinion, these opposing viewpoints further highlight the different interests of different gender and racial groups.  On the one hand, those who lamented industrialization--white males--lamented the loss of the positive social interactions that had enriched their jobs and status.  On the other hand, for those whose jobs involved demeaning social interactions and few benefits--female minorities--this depersonalization may be viewed in a positive light.  It would have been interesting for either Ehrenreich or Glenn to point out this contrast explicitly.

Finally, Glenn's article raises a few questions about some of its gaps.  For instance, Glenn focuses almost exclusively on the northeastern, southern, and western parts of the United States.  While this is understandable, since most of the type of labor Glenn discusses took place in urban centers and on plantations, one wonders what was happening in the rest of the country.  Other questions arise when one considers that Blacks, Hispanics, and Japanese minorities dominate the analysis of different racial groups.  What was the role of smaller minorities?  Did they confront even more obstacles?  Where did they fit into the social and economic hierarchy?  It would have been interesting to see what Glenn makes of these issues.