Rarely do we question what is meant by socio-economic. It seems that we have taken for granted the meaning of a rich term which encompasses much more than we are used to understanding. To grasp what I mean, we once again need to remember that nothing exists in a vacuum, and different realms or spheres are in constant relationship and influence one another. Society, the economy, the environment, and politics, are but four such realms/spheres, which are part of our daily lives. As much separate entities as they could be, however, they are in constant relation to one another. This relation reshapes and redefines every one of them. For example, politics tends to reshape society and the economy in the case of an expansionary fiscal policy (i.e. a government reduces the taxes of its citizens in order to make them spend more and thus enhance economic growth); the economy reshapes the natural environment (i.e. a factory pollutes a nearby forest, which leads to biodiversity loss). These relationships also make it difficult to sometimes draw the boundary where one realm ends and another begins, but this should not be an issue, as we are aware that they are not clear-cut. Also, all these relationships are nuanced and complex, but the one between society and the economy is the one worth unpacking most in the spirit of the theme of this part of The Series – society, labour, and work.
The socio-economic should be understood as the interrelation between the social (society, people) and the economic (economy) altogether. If we understand economy as the organisation/management of the distribution of goods and services (from Greek, oikonomos – household management), then we could very much say that it is the product of society (people, households). In simpler terms, society (people) needed to somehow manage their households back in the day (hence – the Greek term). With time and the advent of more modern social and political structures, the term also evolved to mean something else on a different level (the organisation of the distribution of goods and services on a broader level…). Then, we are left with two key considerations – (1) society is the precondition, necessary foundation, for the existence of the economy; and (2) economy as such came into being to serve society. Nowadays, things do not look as simple as that.
Economy and society have become mutually dependent – for the very existence of the economic realm there is constant need for societal input – in the form of labour for example; yet, for the very existence of society (people), the economy has become an ever important aspect of life – after all, it is the economy (definition above) that provides society with all the goods and services it needs (and many which it does not need, but are still bought and used). To use Hungarian philosopher Karl Polanyi’s term to better exemplify what I mean here, the economy was embedded in societal relations.[1] The economy was part of these relations in the form of an executor of certain things necessary for society’s very existence. With the rise of the free-market economy and self-regulation mechanisms, however, the economy, began to disembed itself from societal relations and society in general, this way subjugating society. In other words, a transformation happened, one which signified the transition from the economy serving society to society serving the economy. This, of course, happened with the institutionalisation of the logic of constant expansion. The more the economy developed, the more it had to continue to grow in order to continue existing. The more it needed to grow, the more the ways it found to do that (by finding previously unexplored and unexploited abodes), with labour as a societal input being the major one.
Now let us get back to the role of society in the current economic system. We know that wage labour (the main contributor to the sustainment of the economy) is an example of a symbiotic relationship between society and economy, arguably beneficial for both realms. To clarify, human input in the economy materialises as economic growth and comes back to society in the form of wages, money which is a compensation for the value a person has created. This compensation goes back in the economic realm when spent by one for a good or service; and so on, and so on. This is essentially a money-making process – labour creates value, this value is sold for more than it costs, one buys and uses the product of it, and then over again. Formally and officially, this labour is a recognised part of the economy, both beneficial to it, but also necessary for its existence. The economy is happy to account for it, as it makes money – remember the if it makes money, count it in logic.
Yet, we see that many other societal relations are crucial for the sustainment of the economy, but the economy fails to account for them. The socio-economic is comprised by much more than wage labour. On a deeper level of analysis, this creates an unequal relationship, which proves the disembeddedness of the economy from society. While society makes everything possible for the sustainment of the economy, as the sustainment of the economy is a requirement for the sustainment of society, the economy seems to externalise certain societal processes, despite them being necessary for the economy’s sustainment. The societal process that helps sustain both the economy and society, but the economy fails to account for, is called social reproduction.
Social reproduction is this aspect of intra-societal processes which help society reproduce itself and hence contribute to the reproduction of the economy. Somehow, social reproduction processes remain hidden from the economy, as they rarely fall within the money-making logic. For example, it is important for a wage labourer to have a warm meal and a good place to rest, so that they could continue the value-creation process the next day. Everyday activities, such as basic chores – cleaning, cooking, throwing the rubbish out, all contribute to the general wellbeing of a person. This general wellbeing of a person, however, is their wellbeing while at home, while doing groceries, while cooking, while working and being a wage labourer. They could not be a wage labourer without being whomever they are at other times. Therefore – cooking, eating a warm meal, resting at a warm place, all contribute to a person being well at all times, including while they work. If a labourer were not as well-rested and well-fed, they would not be as productive, hence not as good of a contributor for the development and growth of the economy.
Yet, the reproduction of the social factor, of the labourer, which happens at home and not at work, seems to be an external to the economy process – one that the economy simply disregards. Social reproduction is the greatest example of how some societal processes that require labour and work in one way or another, remain hidden from and external to the economy, despite being essential to its sustainment. How and why do social reproduction practices remain hidden from the economic realm is a question I turn to in the article to follow.
[1] Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 1944.
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
