Black Feminists in the Third Sector: Here Is Why We Choose to use the term Solidarity Economy

Q1 Social Sciences
Caroline Shenaz Hossein, Megan Pearson
{"title":"Black Feminists in the Third Sector: Here Is Why We Choose to use the term Solidarity Economy","authors":"Caroline Shenaz Hossein, Megan Pearson","doi":"10.1177/00346446221132319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many countries in the Global North use the term “social economy”—also known as the third sector—to describe economies run by citizens rather than by state or business actors. Over the years, many Black feminist scholars that we have worked with also share the view that the concept of the “social economy” is limited to a European understanding. It fails to acknowledge those actors in the third sector who are excluded from interacting with the government or private sector. There is an assumption that the social economy is “socially inclined” and that it is a sector able to “interact” with the state and capitalist firms. What happens when certain groups of people cannot interact with the state or private sectors due to systemic exclusion? We argue that to transform literature on the social economy, we must use the term solidarity economy. Rejecting the sanitized language of the social economy, we use critical discourse and case study analyses to show the worldwide use of the term solidarity. Our work draws on theories of community economy intentional community to argue that the solidarity economy is a site of contestation and a way to push for social change.","PeriodicalId":35867,"journal":{"name":"Review of Black Political Economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Black Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346446221132319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Many countries in the Global North use the term “social economy”—also known as the third sector—to describe economies run by citizens rather than by state or business actors. Over the years, many Black feminist scholars that we have worked with also share the view that the concept of the “social economy” is limited to a European understanding. It fails to acknowledge those actors in the third sector who are excluded from interacting with the government or private sector. There is an assumption that the social economy is “socially inclined” and that it is a sector able to “interact” with the state and capitalist firms. What happens when certain groups of people cannot interact with the state or private sectors due to systemic exclusion? We argue that to transform literature on the social economy, we must use the term solidarity economy. Rejecting the sanitized language of the social economy, we use critical discourse and case study analyses to show the worldwide use of the term solidarity. Our work draws on theories of community economy intentional community to argue that the solidarity economy is a site of contestation and a way to push for social change.
第三部门的黑人女权主义者:这就是为什么我们选择使用团结经济这个术语
全球北方的许多国家使用“社会经济”一词(也称为第三部门)来描述由公民而非国家或商业行为者经营的经济。多年来,我们合作过的许多黑人女权主义学者也都认为,“社会经济”的概念仅限于欧洲人的理解。它没有承认那些被排除在与政府或私营部门互动之外的第三部门行为者。有一种假设认为,社会经济是“有社会倾向的”,它是一个能够与国家和资本主义企业“互动”的部门。当某些群体由于系统性排斥而无法与国家或私营部门互动时,会发生什么?我们认为,要改变关于社会经济的文献,我们必须使用“团结经济”一词。我们摒弃了社会经济的净化语言,使用批判性话语和案例分析来展示团结一词在世界范围内的使用。我们的工作借鉴了社区经济-意向社区的理论,认为团结经济是一个争论的场所,也是推动社会变革的一种方式。
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
Review of Black Political Economy
Review of Black Political Economy Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Review of Black Political Economy examines issues related to the economic status of African-American and Third World peoples. It identifies and analyzes policy prescriptions designed to reduce racial economic inequality. The journal is devoted to appraising public and private policies for their ability to advance economic opportunities without regard to their theoretical or ideological origins. A publication of the National Economic Association and the Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy of Clark College.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信