Bora, Aksu (2005), The Class of Women: Paid Household Labor and the Construction of Women’s Subjection (Kadınların Sınıfı: Ücretli Ev Emeği ve Kadın Öznelliğinin İnşası), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları

Safak Tartanoglu & Burak Faik Emirgil

Uludag University

Historically, feminist literature has concentrated on gender differences, elaborating on inequalities that women have experienced within the traditional patriarchal system. By so doing, it has dealt with femininity as a whole and disregarded class positions and hierarchical structures among women. Differentiation among them came to be discussed only after the 1980s.

In this study, Aksu Bora examined the positioning of women in terms of class and accordingly, their situations before men. Furthermore, Bora aimed to indicate how women’s subjection is re-established in daily life in the context of paid household work by revealing the specificity of household labour relations in Turkey. With this aim, the writer carried out in-depth interviews to record the experiences of 27 women; 14 employees and 13 employers in the field of paid household work. The main problem goes beyond the feminist opinion that women are oppressed just due to their gender and accordingly, their class status. Rather, it questions whether this oppression equalizes them in “sisterhood”. The writer argued that the class differences that occur in terms of housework must be handled as a basic dynamic constituting femininity, beyond the gender factor. Bora tested this argument by comparing women in different classes with the supposition that gender is not a static but rather, a dynamic process in which the individual is involved as an active subject in daily life. In addition, Bora supposed that this process is not independent from power relations and that each woman builds her own subjection using these power relations. These assumptions were analysed by Bourdieu’s social class approach and the concept of “habitus” and Young’s distinction of “homemaking/housework”. The writer evaluated the women’s process of establishing their subjection and the practice of constituting or not constituting class consciousness by combining these two analysis frames. Additionally Bora utilized Scott’s concept of “arts of resistance” elaborating on power/strengthening strategies since the main concern of the writer was not how class inequalities could be maintained, but rather to reveal the change possibilities of these inequalities.

In the first part, the writer dealt with gender approaches in a historical process and revealed the differences between sex and gender based on feminist literature. Criticisms of the first wave of feminist literature focusing on the differences between women and men in the 1970s resulted in the emergence of the second wave of feminist thought when feminists from the third world countries became involved during the 1980s. The second wave also began to emphasize on the differences and inequalities between women themselves as much as those between women and men. The main reason for this emphasis is the dominant view that women of different race, class or ethnic origin cannot be ignored in this discussion. However, the writer does not handle these differences between the women as independent categorical variables, but invites readers to consider gender as a consequence of the symmetrical and/or asymmetrical relations (just like the encounters of the women of different classes, who are mentioned in the book, in the context of paid household work) established with these differences. These relationalities that appear as one of the “founding elements” in the construction of women’s subjection highlight the differences of femininity between women, beyond the women-men duality.

In this sense, as Aksu Bora mentioned in the second part, the house manifests itself as the “constituent space” in the construction of female experience while housework function as the “constituent occupation” in the disclosure of these differences among women. The fact that the house holds different meanings for different women and that women take an active part and lead in the construction process of their own subjection makes the house one of the explanatory elements of the feminine experience. Paid household work is the most appropriate context enabling housework to be dealt with as an experience field where class differences are reproduced. As the writer says: “… here, women from two different classes meet and while trying to gain power through relationship strategies they have developed in their daily life, they construct their own subjection by perceiving and evaluating the class differences in their own reference systems (p.70).” Particularly, when the differences in daily life practices of women in Turkey are taken into account, it is seen that the “traditional” woman type and the “modern” woman type are at two extremes. Also, attributing meaning to the paid household work relationship within the framework of these two approaches leads to the establishment of difference between employer and employee, which is originally a class difference, on the axes of modern – educated – urban and traditional – uneducated – peasant.

The third part referred to the body and labour relationship, which is a neglected issue in gender discussions. It was stressed that the differences between women were more fully discussed after the 1980s and that the body policies were handled as an extension of these discussions. Aksu Bora also began to share her experiences of the women interviewed from body-oriented perceptions, which is a micro appearance of class difference. It was found that they use the control of household work on their bodies as part of their empowerment strategies. While empowerment strategies relating to the body allow household workers to define their femininity through deprivation/oppression and suffering, they sometimes use their appearance as a way to change perceptions about their social status and class. As a result, differences among women are constructed via physical appearances between the different classes (with the example of employee and employer) and among women belonging to the same class. In completing the third part, Aksu Bora focused on women’s perceptions about their own gender roles. Most of the husbands of the women employed in domestic work have irregular jobs or are unemployed. It was understood that no change took place in the idea of “man as the wage earner” and “woman as the homemaker” even situations where the only person bringing in income for the house is female. On the other hand, since bringing in income means “being the family breadwinner” there is a certain group of women who consider this to be a strengthening strategy both against men and women. In this way, they differ not only from other domestic workers but also from their middle-class employers.

In the fourth part, the writer examined the construction process of subjection and stressed the role of experience in this process in the context of evaluations of the relationships of women with their employers who were in the position of “others”. Based on her observations during the interviews, the writer stated that honesty is the most important factor for both household workers and employers. The reason for developing such a discourse is the spatial restriction of household work and the inability to deal with household relationships within the context of conventional employment relationships. In addition, reference of household services as personal creates a perception of “redundancy” among women who work in this field, and leads workers to expect their employers to be closely interested. They were asked questions to define their work description with the aim of determining class differences between household workers and female employers and the answers show traces of Young’s distinction of “homemaking/housework”. According to Aksu Bora, “While middle-class women mainly deal with ‘historic’ dimensions (e.g. house decoration, preparation of meals that bring the family members together) of housework, the total sphere of activity of household work includes work conventionally described as ‘out of history’ such as cleaning sinks, brushing the carpet, dusting, etc (p.125)”.

As an extension of the fourth part, the fifth part discussed how women from different classes establish their femininity by using each other as a mirror, but “other” women who are in the same category are also reflected. Particularly, the perception of household workers of “others” within their own class was stressed. The belief that they work under much better conditions than other cleaners or the idea that other cleaners do not do their jobs as well as they do were determined as the two main tendencies in the perception of others of the women interviewed.

The sixth part tried to find out the class status of women in both categories. The interviewed women mentioned that they did not accept the argument that class differences would affect their daily life practices. The questions directed by Aksu Bora on class differences were perceived as discrimination and prejudice both by the employers and the household workers, who thought that personal characteristics were independent, regardless of class differences. Accordingly, the interviewed women thought that people must be evaluated according to their personalities rather than their class. However, it does not mean that these women are deprived of class consciousness. Here, the writer tried to explain the dark traces of class difference among women in the light of Bourdieu’s social class approach. Bourdieu stressed that the perceptions, evaluations and choices of the individuals belonging to the existing classes, beyond the structural conditions under which manufactured relationships are determinant, must be taken into consideration during the formation of a social class. Therefore, it is possible to say that women established their own class habitus within the framework of mutual relationalism. The fact that social life practices in Turkey are mainly established on the dualities of urbanism/rusticity, conventionalism/modernism and progressiveness/obscurantism causes women to regard society and themselves through such a frame of reference, . Finally, the writer emphasises, a lack of belief of the interviewed household workers in the possibility of changing class differences.

Aksu Bora discussed class difference within the scope of power/empowerment strategies in the final seventh part. The first instrument that female household workers use in empowerment strategies for self-approval is the image of “Female Parasites” who are urban, modern and rich but who give priority to their own pleasures, neglecting the needs of their families. The second one is the comparison of an active and skillful “Anatolian Rural Woman” who faces being insulted just to earn a living for her family against lazy, unskilled and parasitic middle-class women. These images constantly produced by the interviewed household workers are reminiscent of the revenge, lying and hiding tactics named by Scott as “arts of resistance” which the weak implicitly feel against the strong. Even though the cleaning women use such symbolic statements as empowerment instruments against the employers, they cannot rid themselves of the feeling of “being incompetent”. On the other hand, the writer indicated the power instruments of employers in two aspects, namely, maternalism and difference strategies. Aksu Bora says: “The first one establishes a position which knows, teaches and controls how to do housework even though she does not do it herself, but the second one defines housework to be out of her existence and if possible, requires the housework to be completed without being noticed. These two statements give clues about how the femininity constructs of middle-class women could vary (p.165–166).”

As a conclusion, this pioneering book fills an important academic gap in the field of women’s studies in Turkey concerning the multi-dimensional appearances of class status of women in daily life practices. The most important feature of the study lies in the presentation of the impact of class differences among women on the construction of the woman’s subjection in the context of paid household work by means of strong empirical data. As indicated by the findings of the qualitative research, the question of what common ground will bring the interviewed women together, is raised by the complete lack of any trace of a sense of “partnership” or sisterhood among them. The answer may be sought by considering what kind of political opportunities could result from the reflections of gender-oriented class inequalities in Turkey.