The Arcana of Reproduction: Housewives, Prostitutes, Workers and Capital

by Leopoldina Fortunati, Arlen Austen (translator), Sara Colantuono (translator)

The definitive feminist analysis of reproductive and ‘caring’ labor to emerge from Italian feminism of the 1970s

Emerging from the great social upheavals that contested the sexual and racial divisions of labor globally in the 1970s, Leopoldina Fortunati’s classic work expands and transforms how we analyze the sphere of reproduction, redefining the value of the individual’s life and the labor performed in the home.

Released here for the first time in its unabridged form with historical notation and contemporary commentary, The Arcana of Reproduction is a foundational text and essential contribution to today’s discussions of social reproduction and the history of Italian feminism. Fortunati’s work provides some of the earliest theorizations of ‘immaterial,’ ‘affective,’ and ‘caring’ labor, and of the role of technology in reproduction, articulated decades before their popular reception in English academic literature.

Reading this work some 50 years after its original publication gives us the tools to analyze the contemporary state of capitalist development and of women’s lives today. The text remains prefigurative and essential in our era of digital labor.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Politics, Gender, Economics, Theory, Gender and Sexuality

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1981

About the author

Leopoldina Fortunati is an Italian feminist theorist and a Professor of Sociology of Communication and Sociology of Cultural Processes at the Faculty of Education of the University of Udine, Italy.

Reviews

[xDEAD ENDx · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing was not "bad" per se, but just completely in Marxist jargon, which made it difficult to follow at times. What, for me, makes reading Marx interesting is that he ventures out from pure jargon into social and historical examples to illustrate the points he is trying to make. Unfortunately, for many Marxists, Fortunati included, the explanation are just not there. This makes the reading not only boring, but also fairly repetitive. I was left wondering whether the points she makes require a whole book or if they could have just been explained in a single, shorter piece of writing.

I don't think she's wrong about reproduction being the non-value that produces value, but there are only small hints near the end of what would have made this book exciting (and complete) to me. It's only in the last few pages that she even acknowledges how Capital can only exert control at the site of production (the factory), whereas it is the State, working in conjunction with Capital, that organizes the locus of reproduction, the home.

Perhaps biopower is outside of the scope of this book, but seems like a necessary component for any contemporary (and I include the early 80s in this) analysis of Capital and Power.

[Durakov · Rating 4 out of 5]

The writing is bound to alienate a lot of readers (as is clear in the reviews), but there's a lot to gain from reading this in 2025.

It helps to keep the context in mind: this was released in Italy in 81', after the tumultuous 70s, the movement of 77, and the peak of autonomism in the midst of the Lotta Feminista and Wages for Housework movements opening up to new debates around race and colonialism. All these movements were deeply steeped in Marxological debates, and this was often the form in which interventions were made. Unless you are a regular reader of Haymarket's Historical Materialism series, the highly formal, somewhat mechanical, style of the text will probably be off-putting. I would go so far as to say that it will likely fall flat unless you are at least familiar with the major points, style, and structure of Marx's Capital (and to some extent the Grundrisse as well), because, in a sense, this book is a reworking of that one through the lens of reproduction.

If you don't mind the style (personally, I wavered on its effectiveness by chapter), Fortunati's main contentions are necessary to contend with. Here are some of the major ones as I see it:

1. Reproduction involves the simple production of labor power. If labor power is a commodity, why should its production by thought of differently to other commodities (that is, as being solely "reproduced" and not "produced")? Labor power is produced through the labor of gestation and birth, and through parental cultivation of that power. It is then reproduced through the indefinite and unwaged labor of members in their household (usually subservient members like children, the wife, etc).

2. Domestic workers/houseworkers/housewives/free home or domestic labor are taken for granted by capitalists and such relations are forced to persist and/or bolstered via the relations of production and legislation. Therefore, houseworkers actually work for capitalists (who give the wages that support them) mediated by the waged worker.

3. This structure persists by reproducing domestic relations as if they were natural (men are stronger and can withstand waged work better, women are naturally caretakers, etc etc). This is the fetishism of domestic labor.

I think most of the other arguments follow from these three basic premises. Some of the supplementary arguments hold up better than others, but the book is effective insofar as it consistently forces you to rethink labor-capital relations from the perspective of the domicile. Well worth the effort and the afterward connecting the book's argument to developments in capitalism since 81' was great.

[Subarashi · Rating 3 out of 5]

take it for what it is:
not the best english translation of a very dense (and redundant) italian-context-specific feminist reading of marx and reproduction. it's like fish oil supplements or Garlique - the ingestion is not pleasant - but you need to have this stuff in you. right?

[Vivi Spark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic marxist feminist text. This is the most theoretically dense of all this area of theory I’ve read. The purpose of this text, and of Marxist-Feminism as a whole, is to flesh out a key area of marx’s critical theory of political economy which was left mostly unaddressed: the necessary role of reproductive labour. Marx’s critical theory aimed to give light to the foundational aspect of social production in the functioning of society, how the maintenance of society as whole is primarily determined by material life of materially producing the use values required for society to continue functioning. Thus the main focus is on the social structures which organise how this necessary social division of labours is established, according to Marxist theory most societies up to the present date have had mode of organising the social division of labour which included classes - structurally defined positions in this social organisation which are in vertical power relations with other structural positions. Wherein thus the structural position is defined by this relationship of power within the organisation of social production (e.g. serf vs lord, worker vs capitalist etc), according to these theorists these positionalities are a necessary part of this structure of organising production according to a certain mode or logic. Thus the existence of serfs/peasents and lords are necessary to the functioning of social production organised on a feudal basis, whereas the existence of workers (without their own means of production to produce with, or means of subsistence to survive off indepent of their wages from employment) and capitalists (those who own the means of production and profit off the work of the workers) is a necessary structural feature of a capitalist mode of production. Thus the organisation of social production according to the production by independent producers of commodities for the market place - with profit as an objective - necescessaeily requires the existenxe of these two classes. It is part of what makes capitalism capitalism per se. There can be no capitalism without these class relations. According to Marx this class relationship is a relation of exploitation of workers by capitalists which appropriate the labour of the workers, thus beneath the appearance of capitalist society where is there is formal equality between people consentually exchanging goods, there is an underlying hidden relationship of class exploitation which is the actual social logic foundational to the society. According to this understanding the labour appropriated is productive labour, capitalists appropriate the workers contributions in sweat and blood to continued existence of society. This hidden exploitation is thus seen as the heart of capitalism, its core or ‘base’ to use the jargon. While any actual society will have more then just this going on - e.g. more then just two classes - these two classes and theory relationship of exploitation are seen as the only structural positions necessary to all capitalist societies. Everything else then class politics is then seen as of secondary importance, including anti-racism, feminist politics etc. These, if at all acknowledged, are seen to be of importance to the ‘superstructure’ which supports this foundational base but is not seen as part of the base itself - e.g. not seen as essential to the reproduction of society This is a position which has been challenged by many marxists theorists however, who attempt to bring these elements into vision not as just ‘superstructural’ extra pieces which are seen as ‘non-material’ and unimportant in fundamentally understanding society, but as structural elements of the economic base itself - of essential aspects as the way this society organises its social division of labour. This is done by showing the structural functionality of these social systems (racism, patriachy etc) in the functioning of this social division of labour at one of two levels: 1) in a specific incarnation of capitalism (E.g. showing that racism was a necessary part of one incarnation of capitalism like the American antebellum south) as being necessary for that specific society; or 2) attempting to show that this structural positioning is as necessary a part of definition as the class relation is (e.g. to argue that racism is also a structurally required part of a society organised on a capitalist basis, so that all capitalist societies are seen to be racist by nature). The project of specifically marxist-feminists is to integrate patriarchal structures as being understood as part of the economic basis of society either on the 1st level or 2nd. Whereas there were previous socialist-feminists who integrated socialist class politics with a feminist politics of anti patriarchy, they did they as by regarding the class politics as being an issue of capitalism and of patriarchy as being a separate social system within capitalist societies which was not essential to it. Some going as far to argue that a fully developed capitalism would mean necessarily the end of patriarchy, that the totalisation of the logic of the class relation would end patriachy forever. In this model the special oppression faced by women was seen as effect of them not being integrated into capitalism. The project of the marxist feminists was an absolute opposite of this in that it tried to show that the oppression of women in marxist societies was instead due to their integration into capitalism, that in capitalism women were made to play a certain necessary role which created their oppressed status within capitalist societies. The key part played by women according to these theorists is the production of workers - not just biologically. For a society based on a class relationship between workers and capitalists to function there needs to an adequate supply of these workers. Workers do not spring from the ground fully formed however, but are born and then requires years of labour in upbringing. Moreover to this generational production of the labour-force, after workers come home everyday their ability to labour must also be reproduced (e.g. they must eat, have their clothes repaired etc). Someone must do this labour. According to Marxist-Feminists the people who are defined the role of this necessary labour within capitalism are women. Just as there is a division between the people who own the means of production and decides what firms will produce and attempt to sell, and those who are ordered as to what to produce; there is also a similar social division between those who must provide this ‘social reproductive’ labour and those who receive it for free (men and capitalists). As a note, this is not taken to mean that these women doing unpaid social reproductive labour aren’t also possibly workers in their own right. But merely that whether or not they have a first shift in a factory or other workplace, they necessarily have a ‘second shift’ in the home. Some marxist-feminists would side with position 1) that while this patriachal organisation of social reproduction of the labour force within the domestic sphere is necessary in specific capitalist societies, it is a contingent feature and not a necessary structural component of capitalism per se. In that account the social reproductive position of women is an accident of history, and it is (atleast conceptually) possibly that capitalism could develop in a way which allows for the end of this social structure. On position 2) this social reproduction division is instead seen as being just as structural element of capitalism as the class relation in. In Marx’s critical theory he attempts to develop from the smallest element of capitalist society (the commodity), to the entire totality of every element of social structure which is necessary for a society based on the production of commodities as a part of its definition. According to this school of marxist-feminism, the patriarchal division of social reproductive labour is an element of the social structure as definitive of capitalism as commodities and classes are. According to them the only way capitalism can organise the reproduction of its labour force is through the creation of sexed/gendered division of labour which layed its burden on the shoulders of women. Thus just as production is the hidden abode of economic exploitation within capitalism, social reproduction is the hidden abode of patriarchal exploitation within production. All production requires that someone must have done this social reproductive work before hand so that there is a worker already there to do the ‘productive’ labour, thus patriarchy is seen as been just another structural element of capitalist society. This is fortunati’s position in this book: that patriarchal exploitation is primarily just another part of how capitalism functions. Patriarchy is entirely subsumed as an element of one capitalist system. Whereas previous socialist feminists acknowledged things like the uneven distribution of housework as being issues, they weren’t seen as being the result of capitalism. To ‘single-system’ theorists like Fortunati patriarchy is a necessary subsystem in the overall system of capital accumulation, existing due its structural benefits in creating profits for the social system. Opposite to the ‘single-system’ theorists are ‘dual-system’ theorists see capitalism and patriarchy as being two different material systems of production which then interact with each other. Capitalism operating to the benefit of capitalists, patriachy to the benefit of men. These two positions have been the key controversy in marxist feminist thought since its inception. Arguably a single-system perspective is reductive in assuming that patriarchy is completely subsumable to its functioning in capitalism; whereas a dual-system perspective underestimates the mutual dependency of the two systems. A third middle position is probably most accurate. This is book is a strong representation of the single system view however, even if we disagree with the conceptual necessity of these systems for capitalism per se this book does a good job in explaining the structural benefits capitalism gets from patriarchy. This is made stronger by her attempt to not just explain the typical housewife position as structurally definitonal for capitalism, but also the existence of a sex work industry. This provides a good pushback on simplistic abolitionist views on sex work, if being in a capitalist society requires that there be a sex-work sector (or atleast that capitalism is currently and does always benefit from the existence of such a sector) then simply attempting to ban this sector won’t prevent its continued existence due to its benefits to reproducing society as a whole. Overall this book makes many useful theoretical contributions, but then does get held down in its writing style being overly dense and theoretical. Its sometimes hard to understand why the point being made is actually important in understanding the societies in which we live. As is too often in marxist theory it degrades into scholastisicism and definition fights. Overall a good book however.

[KT · Rating 5 out of 5]

Analysis of Reproduction begins by examining the transition from a precapitalist to a capitalist mode of production in outlining the gendered character of reproductive work, housework, and sex work, and the structural category or gendered subject who performs this particular kind of socially necessary work specific to the capitalist mode of production

Building on the insufficient theorisation of reproductive labour by Marx, who left women out of the story, this book metaphorically finds where he is hiding them

As Fortunati claims, reproduction is “posited as a ‘natural production,’ which has enabled two workers to be exploited with one wage, and the entire cost of reproduction to be unloaded onto the labor force"
Nevertheless, this exploitation is not unloaded equally, because it must be inscribed onto female biology, disguising its origin in the historically specific capitalist mode of reproduction

Capitalism itself re-encloses the areas these gains have generated – that is the reproduction of capitalism daily hides the social character of necessary gendered exploitation, and it will remain structurally obscured unless its social character is exposed by struggle

What is perhaps most important to say here is that the circuit C-M-C assumes that the wage-earner’s commodity “labor-power” is purchased on the market ready-made, with money wages
The problem is the fact that at no point does labor-power roll off an assembly line

This leads to the work of the wages against housework movement that aimed to denaturalise this form of labor-power, to dismantle its biological justification, so that those who perform this work can be understood as proletarians in the full sense of the term – not just as waged workers, but as socialised proletarian subjects with the power to struggle as a sector of the exploited class
This struggle begins from a definite point of capitalist exploitation and work for capital: (non-directly waged) reproduction

Highly recommended for anyone interested in social reproduction or marxist feminism

[Emily Warfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

A formal economic explanation of reproductive labor, complete with equations. It gets five stars for groundbreaking Marxist feminist content and one star for writing style (or, perhaps, translation). Even the densest academic jargon shouldn't be this repetitive and convoluted.

I'd recommend part one to other people who like to geek out about gendered labor and to Marxist and anarchist feminists who want citations for why 'radical' feminists' carceral attempts to abolish the sex industry outside of capitalism will never work (pages 44-45). Everyone else should skip it and pick up Silvia Federici's Revolution at Point Zero instead.

[Kersplebedeb · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book deserves both a five for creativity and a one for badly written dense language, so a three is what it gets. Great ideas, but be prepared to take deep breaths when faced with (almost) incomprehensible jargon on every page.

My complete review is up on my site at http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/b...

[Sophie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s Feminist Marxist critique from the Italian school. Very interesting in conversation with federici. Some overlap with caliban and the witch conceptually. But also new concepts as well.

[val · Rating 4 out of 5]

lo leería de nuevo cuando tenga mejores conocimientos de teoría marxista porque no es muy fácil pipipi

[Lauren Levitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with previous reviewers that the writing was quite jargony, but it is feminist Marxism. Some of it was completely incomprehensible to me, particularly the equations. It did offer a very thorough analysis of reproductive labor, however.

[Marlie Fraser · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good dissertation book, crazy how deeply embedded capitalism is into the way our lives work etc

[David Guetteur · Rating 5 out of 5]

attention très très marxiste!!!

[Valerie Baber · Rating 1 out of 5]

Life is too short to waste time on bad writing. If you don't have to read this, don't. If you do and you don't have a copy, let me know. I'd be happy to get it off my hands. Be warned, though. it's been through a critical analysis class and has been thoroughly marked with notes of cynicsm and remarks of the logical kind, which a young and embittered Ms. Fortunati seemed to have forgotten to include when composing this.

[Mirza Sultan-Galiev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great Marxist examination of reproductive labor.