The very existence of society is a precondition for the existence of the economy. For society to continue existing, it needs to reproduce itself – to continue being. This is called social reproduction. And if society is simply people – be they organised in groups, or just all of the people in the world, then social reproduction is simply the reproduction of people. Not only in the very biological way, however, but also on a different level – it includes everyday processes, such as care-taking or -giving (a mother feeding her child is reproducing society as much as a woman in labour), meal preparation (a person cooking for themselves and then eating is also reproducing society in a way), cleaning (someone tidying up their house creates better conditions for their living, hence enhance their wellbeing, hence also reproduces society). On top of reproducing society, however, social reproduction processes also reproduce the economy – let us remember that society is a precondition for the existence of the economy. Yet, they are not always apparent economically. That is why social reproduction deserves attention in order for us to unpack why it remains hidden from the economy albeit its importance.
It seems that the economy views society in two ways – the economically active parts of society, which are able to work and make money, and the inactive parts of it that do not make money. Following the money-making logic, it is clear what happens – the ones that make money are very much accounted for economically and their very needs are way more economically acknowledged. Let us look into this from the perspective of care. Everyone needs care, and it can take different forms, for example self-care or care for others. In simple terms, does one care for themselves, do they care for someone else, or does someone else care for them – all types of care, not exclusive mutually.
I could, for example, take care of myself by washing up after I wake up, making breakfast and eating it. If I make breakfast for someone else too, I take care of them in a way. This way I help reproduce myself and the person I made breakfast for in a twofold way – (1) purely physiologically, as we need to eat to survive, and (2) in a more socio-economic sense, as we need to have energy in order to perform our daily activities which might very much be economic ones (like going to work). I could also take care of my pensioner grandfather (who is also a widower), who finds it difficult to walk and could do a few things by himself, but is not able to fully perform self-care. Then, I would take care of him by providing him with the necessary products from the shop which is too far away from his house, or help him clean the windows of his house, because it would be dangerous for him to do that considering his age. All processes that help reproduce society and the social foundation.
The breakfast example is way more economic than the grandfather example. Let me clarify: by making breakfast for me and another person, I am ensuring that both of us are well fed and ready to perform our economic activities – go to work and be productive. By helping my pensioner grandfather get groceries, or cleaning his windows, I am helping him live his life better, relieving him from some hardships. Allow me to be cynical here – the economy does not care for my grandfather. The state does, to an extent, as he is receiving his well deserved pension, but the economy does not. He makes no money for the economy. Yes, he spends money, but only the one that has been provided to him by the state (and in some cases some savings). In other words, he is not actively involved in the money-making process. A perverted logic, but it makes sense (at least for the economy). What is more perverted here, however, is that the economy does not care for my breakfast either. It only cares that I work productively. Even though this breakfast is essential for me to perform my work, it somehow remains abstract to the orthodox economic logic.
All of this care takes time. Time I could spend otherwise in other cases. Also, all of this care costs energy, for the recreation of which I would also need time. For example, instead of cleaning the windows of my grandfather, I could relax and spend some quality time with him grabbing some tea in the park nearby his house. Instead of me driving to the shop which is far from his house I could earn some more quality time with him playing chess. Yet, I have to do help him do all of these things. Not to be misunderstood, I am not complaining that I should help him. What I mean is that the time I have to spend cleaning is time I could spend talking to him and drinking tea together.
Of course, I could monetise and economise the care I have to provide to my grandfather. Instead of me taking care of him, I could hire someone to do that for me. I could hire someone to clean the windows and take weekly care of my grandfather’s house, or order the groceries and get them delivered in an hour. This would save me time, but would cost more money than usual. This well points to a paradox – I could monetise and economise the care I have to provide to my grandfather, but it would cost money. Yet, it would save me time and I can spend this time with him relaxing together, instead of cleaning windows or doing groceries. I would not have to take additional time to relax and recreate, unlike after having cleaned the windows, therefore I can have enough time to rest and be a productive worker. The issue here is that all of this care happens when I do not have to work. As in, either after work, or during the weekend. Time which I should be reproducing myself in order to continue being, and to continue to be a productive part of the economy. Yet all of this care influences my economic performance and hence has an impact on the economy.
Care and care work are a great example of how specific non-wage labour is essential for the economy, but somehow remains hidden. Economically speaking, some care and care work tend to be more important than others – the ones that make money, for example, are more important for the economy than the ones that do now make money. The ones that help us make money are more important than the ones that do not, but less important than the ones that do, and so on. There are some aspects of care that are indeed economised and monetised in order to be acknowledged for their importance for the economy. Others, however, remain on the fringes of the socio-economic, leaving many in desperate conditions. Why and how is one type of care more important for the economy than other is what I discuss in the article to follow.
