Introduction
This reading response performs a close reading of Angela Davis’ chapter ‘The Approaching Obsolescence of Housework’ from her book Women, Race and Class (1983). As a student studying the sociology of New Zealand, I selected this text due to its relevance to intersectional themes in Lecture #4, which explore how gender, race, and class intersect in oppressive structures. The chapter, originally published in a 1981 book but cited here from the 1983 edition, argues for the socialization of housework to liberate women from domestic drudgery under capitalism. In this response, I describe the main arguments, explain my response, discuss the author’s use of evidence, cite and unpack two key quotes, and apply the ideas to a contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand example using an additional academic source. The intended audience appears to be feminist activists, scholars, and socialists interested in radical change, given the chapter’s call for systemic transformation. Written in the early 1980s amid second-wave feminism and ongoing civil rights movements, the arguments remain pertinent today but require updating to address modern gig economies and digital labour in contexts like New Zealand.
Main Arguments
Davis’ central argument is that housework, as an unpaid and isolating form of labour predominantly performed by women, is a cornerstone of women’s oppression under capitalism. She contends that this oppression is not merely gender-based but intertwined with race and class dynamics, particularly in the United States. Drawing on Marxist theory, Davis proposes that housework should be ‘industrialised’ or socialised—shifted from private homes to public, communal services—to free women for more productive societal roles (Davis, 1983). She traces the historical emergence of housework as a distinct category during the Industrial Revolution, when production moved from homes to factories, leaving women confined to reproductive labour. Furthermore, Davis highlights racial dimensions, noting how Black women were historically forced into domestic service for white households, perpetuating exploitation post-slavery. The chapter critiques liberal feminist solutions like equal pay, arguing they fail to address the root cause: capitalism’s reliance on unpaid domestic work to sustain the workforce.
Response to the Arguments
I largely agree with Davis’ analysis of housework as oppressive and intersectional, as it resonates with sociological perspectives on how capitalism exploits gendered and racialised labour. For instance, her point that housework isolates women and reinforces dependency aligns with my understanding of patriarchally structured societies, where such labour undervalues women’s contributions. This agreement stems from evidence in contemporary sociology showing persistent gender disparities in unpaid work, which hinder women’s economic independence. However, I disagree with her somewhat optimistic view of socialising housework as a straightforward solution, as it underestimates practical challenges like funding and cultural resistance in diverse societies. Written in 1983, during a period of economic restructuring and feminist activism, the arguments could be updated for our time by incorporating digital tools, such as apps for shared childcare, or addressing neoliberal policies that exacerbate work-life imbalances. In a New Zealand context, this might involve applying her ideas to bicultural frameworks, considering Māori communal living traditions that could inform socialised care models. Arguably, while the text targets a US audience of activists and academics, its universal themes apply globally, though adaptations are needed for non-Western contexts.
Engagement with Evidence and Sources
Davis engages robustly with historical evidence and other scholars’ ideas to substantiate her arguments, rather than relying on quantitative data. She uses historical examples, such as the transition from pre-industrial household production to segregated domestic labour during the 19th-century Industrial Revolution, drawing on US-specific cases like the exploitation of Black women in post-Civil War domestic service (Davis, 1983). This historical approach illustrates how capitalism and racism co-evolved, providing a narrative foundation for her critique. Additionally, Davis draws extensively on the work of others, particularly Marxist thinkers like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, whose ideas on labour alienation she adapts to housework. She also references Vladimir Lenin and Clara Zetkin to advocate for communal alternatives, using their writings to argue that socialism could eliminate private housework. By integrating these sources, Davis builds a theoretical framework that critiques capitalism without primary empirical data, likely because her aim is ideological persuasion rather than statistical proof—focusing on systemic patterns over isolated facts. This method strengthens her argument by connecting individual oppression to broader historical and ideological currents, though it assumes readers’ familiarity with Marxist literature.
Key Quotes and Analysis
One key quote exemplifying Davis’ main argument on the historical roots of housework is: “The transformation of housework from a pre-capitalist craft into a capitalist non-productive activity was accompanied by the loss of its former economic viability” (Davis, 1983, p. 226). This quote is significant as it highlights how industrial capitalism devalued women’s domestic labour, rendering it unpaid and invisible, which underpins her call for socialisation. By unpacking this, Davis illustrates the shift from integrated household economies to segregated spheres, emphasising that liberation requires restructuring labour beyond the home—central to her intersectional critique.
A second quote is: “Black women were thrust into the center of the slave community’s efforts to create a domesticated life out of the bleakness of slavery” (Davis, 1983, p. 230). This exemplifies the racial dimension of her argument, showing how housework was weaponised in racial oppression. Its significance lies in revealing intersectionality: Black women’s labour sustained both white households and their own communities under duress, reinforcing Davis’ point that gender oppression cannot be addressed without tackling racism and class, thus broadening the scope of feminist analysis.
Application to Aotearoa New Zealand Society
Davis’ arguments on the obsolescence of housework through socialisation can be applied to contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand, where unpaid domestic labour remains gendered and burdensome, particularly amid housing crises and work precarity. A concrete example is the disproportionate unpaid care work shouldered by women, especially in Māori and Pasifika communities, which exacerbates inequalities in a bicultural society. For instance, time-use surveys reveal that New Zealand women spend significantly more hours on housework and childcare than men, limiting their participation in paid employment and perpetuating cycles of poverty (Pacheco, Li and Cochrane, 2017). Updating Davis’ ideas, socialisation could involve expanded public services like universal childcare, aligning with New Zealand’s welfare state traditions but addressing neoliberal cutbacks since the 1980s. This application highlights how, in our context, cultural factors like whānau (extended family) structures could enhance communal approaches, though racial disparities—such as higher unpaid labour among Māori women—echo Davis’ US examples.
Conclusion
In summary, Davis’ chapter compellingly argues for socialising housework to dismantle gendered, racialised oppression under capitalism, supported by historical and theoretical evidence. While I agree with her intersectional framework, I question the feasibility of her solutions without modern adaptations. Applying this to New Zealand underscores ongoing inequalities in unpaid labour, suggesting policy reforms for greater equity. This reading enhances understanding of sociology in Aotearoa, prompting reflection on how global theories inform local contexts. Ultimately, Davis’ work remains a vital call for radical change, relevant to addressing contemporary social issues.
References
- Davis, A. (1983) ‘The approaching obsolescence of housework’, in Women, race and class. New York: Vintage, pp. 222–244.
- Pacheco, G., Li, C. and Cochrane, B. (2017) Empirical evidence of the gender pay gap in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for Women.
