The Future of Housework: The Similarities and Differences Between Making Kin and Making Babies

IF 1.3 4区社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES

Australian Feminist Studies Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI:10.1080/08164649.2019.1702874

J. Hamilton

{"title":"The Future of Housework: The Similarities and Differences Between Making Kin and Making Babies","authors":"J. Hamilton","doi":"10.1080/08164649.2019.1702874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article critiques Donna Haraway’s slogan ‘make kin not babies’ via a reading of her SF tale ‘The Camille Stories’. It does so by considering the relationship between the care labour practices involved in making both kin and babies. The article has two central operations. It is an explicitly eco-social feminist argument against the use of making kin as an uncomplicated theoretical standpoint in the environmental humanities. At the same time, it deconstructs the iconic feminist ambit to be liberated from housework. These parallel operations emerge by characterising making kin as a kind of housework, which is a deeply ironic evaluation of Haraway’s slogan. Overall the article is a response to the question: how is the work involved in making kin both the same as and different to the labour of making babies? The answer is constructed through the method of literary close reading, paying attention to genre and plot of ‘The Camille Stories’ alongside Fiona McGregor’s novel Indelible Ink [2010. Melbourne: Scribe Publications] and Quinn Eades’s all the beginnings: a queer autobiography of the body [2015. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing]. These comparative readings enable a reckoning with the gnarly and contradictory implications of ‘making kin’ across contemporary environmental humanities and feminisms.","PeriodicalId":46443,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Studies","volume":"34 1","pages":"468 - 489"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08164649.2019.1702874","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2019.1702874","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article critiques Donna Haraway’s slogan ‘make kin not babies’ via a reading of her SF tale ‘The Camille Stories’. It does so by considering the relationship between the care labour practices involved in making both kin and babies. The article has two central operations. It is an explicitly eco-social feminist argument against the use of making kin as an uncomplicated theoretical standpoint in the environmental humanities. At the same time, it deconstructs the iconic feminist ambit to be liberated from housework. These parallel operations emerge by characterising making kin as a kind of housework, which is a deeply ironic evaluation of Haraway’s slogan. Overall the article is a response to the question: how is the work involved in making kin both the same as and different to the labour of making babies? The answer is constructed through the method of literary close reading, paying attention to genre and plot of ‘The Camille Stories’ alongside Fiona McGregor’s novel Indelible Ink [2010. Melbourne: Scribe Publications] and Quinn Eades’s all the beginnings: a queer autobiography of the body [2015. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing]. These comparative readings enable a reckoning with the gnarly and contradictory implications of ‘making kin’ across contemporary environmental humanities and feminisms.

查看原文本刊更多论文

家务的未来：生儿育女的异同

摘要本文通过阅读唐娜·哈拉威的科幻小说《卡米尔的故事》，对她的“要亲不要娃”的口号进行了批判。它通过考虑在制造亲属和婴儿中所涉及的护理劳动实践之间的关系来做到这一点。这篇文章有两个核心操作。这是一个明确的生态社会女权主义论点，反对在环境人文学科中使用制造亲属作为一个简单的理论立场。同时，它解构了从家务中解放出来的标志性女权主义目标。这些并行操作通过将亲属关系描述为一种家务而出现，这是对哈拉威口号的深刻讽刺评价。总的来说，这篇文章是对这个问题的回应:制造亲属所涉及的工作与制造婴儿的劳动是如何相同和不同的?答案是通过文学细读的方法构建的，关注《卡米尔故事》的类型和情节，以及菲奥娜·麦格雷戈的小说《不可磨灭的墨水》[2010]。墨尔本:Scribe Publications)和Quinn Eades的《all the beginnings: a queer autobiography of the body》[2015]。墨尔本:澳大利亚学术出版社。这些比较读物使我们能够对当代环境人文主义和女权主义中“亲近”的粗糙和矛盾的含义进行清算。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Australian Feminist Studies WOMENS STUDIES-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Australian Feminist Studies was launched in the summer of 1985 by the Research Centre for Women"s Studies at the University of Adelaide. During the subsequent two decades it has become a leading journal of feminist studies. As an international, peer-reviewed journal, Australian Feminist Studies is proud to sustain a clear political commitment to feminist teaching, research and scholarship. The journal publishes articles of the highest calibre from all around the world, that contribute to current developments and issues across a spectrum of feminisms.