What do you think?
Rate this book
The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values
A brilliant approach to the economics of caregiving and feminized work, from the MacArthur Award–winning economist
“Important and illuminating . . . an outstandingly provocative book about the economics of care and reciprocity.” —Emma Rothschild, The New York Times Book Review
Lost in perpetually controversial conversations about “family values” is an examination of the economic forces that are exploding family life and limiting the caregiving that families can provide. As leading feminist economist Nancy Folbre notes, every society must confront the problem of balancing self-interested pursuits with care for others—including children, the elderly, and the infirm. Historically, most societies enjoyed an increased supply of care by maintaining strict limits on women’s freedom. But as these limits have happily and inevitably given way, there are many consequences for those who still need care. Using the image of “the invisible heart” to evoke the forces of compassion that must temper the forces of self-interest, Folbre argues in her classic book that if we don’t establish a new set of rules defining our mutual responsibilities for caregiving, the penalties suffered by the needy—our very families—will increase. Intensified economic competition may drive altruism and families out of business. The COVID-19 pandemic, too, has torn apart the tenuous, fragile web that makes care work possible in our society. Nancy Folbre writes in a lively, personal style and develops a distinctive approach to the economics of care. Unlike others who praise family values, Folbre acknowledges the complicated relationship between women and altruism. The Invisible Heart offers powerful feminist approaches to such policy issues as welfare reform, school finance, and progressive taxation, and it confronts the challenges of globalization, outlining strategies for developing an economic system that rewards both individual achievement and care for others.
“Important and illuminating . . . an outstandingly provocative book about the economics of care and reciprocity.” —Emma Rothschild, The New York Times Book Review
Lost in perpetually controversial conversations about “family values” is an examination of the economic forces that are exploding family life and limiting the caregiving that families can provide. As leading feminist economist Nancy Folbre notes, every society must confront the problem of balancing self-interested pursuits with care for others—including children, the elderly, and the infirm. Historically, most societies enjoyed an increased supply of care by maintaining strict limits on women’s freedom. But as these limits have happily and inevitably given way, there are many consequences for those who still need care. Using the image of “the invisible heart” to evoke the forces of compassion that must temper the forces of self-interest, Folbre argues in her classic book that if we don’t establish a new set of rules defining our mutual responsibilities for caregiving, the penalties suffered by the needy—our very families—will increase. Intensified economic competition may drive altruism and families out of business. The COVID-19 pandemic, too, has torn apart the tenuous, fragile web that makes care work possible in our society. Nancy Folbre writes in a lively, personal style and develops a distinctive approach to the economics of care. Unlike others who praise family values, Folbre acknowledges the complicated relationship between women and altruism. The Invisible Heart offers powerful feminist approaches to such policy issues as welfare reform, school finance, and progressive taxation, and it confronts the challenges of globalization, outlining strategies for developing an economic system that rewards both individual achievement and care for others.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
13 people are currently reading
821 people want to read
About the author
Nancy Folbre
35 books34 followersNancy Folbre is an American feminist economist who focuses on economics and the family, non-market work and the economics of care. She is Professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 14, 2024
Feminist Economics 101…
Preamble:
--This is one of those gems I’ve been referencing for ages but never finished. So, in my re-prioritization of the “big reads”, it’s time to check this off.
--As usual, I’ve taken liberties with re-organizing the book’s contents in a manner that allows me to start with the big picture. This was especially useful here; Folbre actually has amazing scope of content, but the book’s organization often narrows this because it’s mostly targeting a US audience on domestic policies.
Highlights:
1) Patriarchy’s Bargain:
--Patriarchy’s care-work/reproductive labour (“social reproduction”) is secured through mostly social coercion/normalization of free labour from women. Folbre is brief on this section, so I’ll have to fill in…
--On the origins, Folbre mentions: biological division-of-labour compelled women to specialize in child-rearing, which led to more dependence on males for assistance. Now, this is a messy general statement. For example, if we consider the diversity of paleo/anthropology, female kinship support seems more crucial to direct assistance with child-rearing, and at least an important factor overall: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
--So, the transition to patriarchy’s power over family and society is more complicated, which requires analyzing the materialist anthropology of:
i) modes of production, which influences surplus thus property rights and defense/raiding: “immediate return” nomadic hunting-gathering vs. “delayed return” settled agriculture/nomadic pastoralism
ii) residence of couples with which side of the family, which influences bargaining power between the genders: “patrilocal” vs. “matrilocal”
iii) inheritance: “patrilineal” vs. “matrilineal”
--Once patriarchy was established, Folbre can make the point that there are efficiencies in the specialization, while warning of the costs (stunting women’s development of capabilities/bargaining power).
2) Capitalism’s Disruptions:
…Thus, Folbre frames capitalism as eroding patriarchy (along with its captured care!), leaving a gap in care. I think this framing is messy; it's like those who frame capitalism as somehow eroding slavery and replacing it with wage labour. All these generalities are contingent on the scope (space/time) of your analysis. The rise of capitalism relied on the rise of chattel slavery; Marxist feminists would link capitalism with patriarchy in various ways:
-ex. Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation
-ex. Mies' Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour
...I prefer the framing of capitalism's "uninterrupted disturbance" ("all new-formed [relations] become antiquated before they can ossify").
...While I sympathize with feminists having impatience for the mountain of patriarchal “Economics” theory, I think it’s a shame to not address tools of power; this is where academics like Folbre shine, going through the labyrinth of status quo theory and then applying an alternative lens.
…Can capitalist markets fill this gap? Modern mainstream economists, being vulgar sociopaths in their normalization of capitalism, are steps behind even the pioneer capitalist cheerleader on addressing capitalism’s care gap:
i) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1758):
--Adam Smith’s first major work shows his optimistic view of human nature (Smith was a moral philosopher), which today’s vulgar economists omit:
--However, Smith along with the other patriarchal fathers of political economy/liberalism (including John Locke), assumed care was just natural maternal instinct, thus devalued/free to exploit (along with Mother Nature)/separate from the emerging concept of “work” under capitalism (“labour theory of value”) as rational calculations.
…Folbre stresses that assuming care is maternal and simply from nature obscures all the social incentives/coercion with their wide range of outcomes. Care has limits with difficult decisions over responsibilities, including “prisoners of love” emotional attachments.
ii) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776):
--Now we have the (naïve) moral philosophy context for the infamous quote which vulgar economists cherry-pick:
--The book title Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? A Story About Women and Economics is illustrative. The “Invisible Hand” of markets would not have any labour without the “Invisible Heart” of care-work.
--Crucially, the benefits of care-work are not captured in the immediate market exchange (thus, “externalities”), so competitors on the market want to cut the costs of the “care penalty”. This is such a tragedy because the external benefits can be captured on the community level (esp. long-term). Care-work that enters the market are notoriously perverse, with US’s healthcare/education/childcare/elderly care as glaring examples.
…The actual goal of social services is communism (i.e. “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”: quality services accessible for everyone in need…an interesting paradox I think about working in public health within a capitalist society). Market logic, in contrast, is one-dollar-one-vote, so poor people do not have value. Privatized social services only seem “efficient” because of selection, where they exclude those most in need (ex. US’s obscenely costly and exclusionary private health insurance). In the US, this class discrimination gets compounded with race discrimination, ex. exclusionary school funding leading to re-segregation.
--Our pro-capitalist economic measures reflect its priorities, with stock prices and GDP growth reflecting the health of the rich and their short-term pillaging (at whatever costs). Measuring social health would require focusing on access to public health/education/basic needs, as well as building human capabilities/communities (care/civic participation)/long-term environmental health, subtracting the costs (which capitalism find most profitable, including military industrial complex/speculative gambling/addiction).
--Furthermore, actions can change motivations. Cooperation builds trust, a virtuous cycle. Ruthless competition, like an arms race, is a vicious cycle.
…see comments for the rest of the review:
"3) Reform's Protectionism"
"4) Neoliberalism's Disruptions"
"5) Progressives' Future?"
Preamble:
--This is one of those gems I’ve been referencing for ages but never finished. So, in my re-prioritization of the “big reads”, it’s time to check this off.
--As usual, I’ve taken liberties with re-organizing the book’s contents in a manner that allows me to start with the big picture. This was especially useful here; Folbre actually has amazing scope of content, but the book’s organization often narrows this because it’s mostly targeting a US audience on domestic policies.
Highlights:
1) Patriarchy’s Bargain:
--Patriarchy’s care-work/reproductive labour (“social reproduction”) is secured through mostly social coercion/normalization of free labour from women. Folbre is brief on this section, so I’ll have to fill in…
--On the origins, Folbre mentions: biological division-of-labour compelled women to specialize in child-rearing, which led to more dependence on males for assistance. Now, this is a messy general statement. For example, if we consider the diversity of paleo/anthropology, female kinship support seems more crucial to direct assistance with child-rearing, and at least an important factor overall: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
--So, the transition to patriarchy’s power over family and society is more complicated, which requires analyzing the materialist anthropology of:
i) modes of production, which influences surplus thus property rights and defense/raiding: “immediate return” nomadic hunting-gathering vs. “delayed return” settled agriculture/nomadic pastoralism
ii) residence of couples with which side of the family, which influences bargaining power between the genders: “patrilocal” vs. “matrilocal”
iii) inheritance: “patrilineal” vs. “matrilineal”
--Once patriarchy was established, Folbre can make the point that there are efficiencies in the specialization, while warning of the costs (stunting women’s development of capabilities/bargaining power).
2) Capitalism’s Disruptions:
Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch [i.e. capitalism] from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned [...]--Capitalism’s reproductive labour is still mostly through free (unwaged) labour from women; however, capitalism’s disruptions have rendered patriarchy’s family economy obsolete. Families no longer rely on a self-sufficiency (“economy” has roots in “house” and “to manage”) and look to the outside labour market for opportunities, eventually with most women entering the labour market.
-The Communist Manifesto
…Thus, Folbre frames capitalism as eroding patriarchy (along with its captured care!), leaving a gap in care. I think this framing is messy; it's like those who frame capitalism as somehow eroding slavery and replacing it with wage labour. All these generalities are contingent on the scope (space/time) of your analysis. The rise of capitalism relied on the rise of chattel slavery; Marxist feminists would link capitalism with patriarchy in various ways:
-ex. Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation
-ex. Mies' Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour
...I prefer the framing of capitalism's "uninterrupted disturbance" ("all new-formed [relations] become antiquated before they can ossify").
...While I sympathize with feminists having impatience for the mountain of patriarchal “Economics” theory, I think it’s a shame to not address tools of power; this is where academics like Folbre shine, going through the labyrinth of status quo theory and then applying an alternative lens.
…Can capitalist markets fill this gap? Modern mainstream economists, being vulgar sociopaths in their normalization of capitalism, are steps behind even the pioneer capitalist cheerleader on addressing capitalism’s care gap:
i) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1758):
--Adam Smith’s first major work shows his optimistic view of human nature (Smith was a moral philosopher), which today’s vulgar economists omit:
However selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.…Smith assumed people’s love of family/duty to others/loyalty to country were the basis of advanced civilization, where “self-interest” would be rendered benevolent.
--However, Smith along with the other patriarchal fathers of political economy/liberalism (including John Locke), assumed care was just natural maternal instinct, thus devalued/free to exploit (along with Mother Nature)/separate from the emerging concept of “work” under capitalism (“labour theory of value”) as rational calculations.
…Folbre stresses that assuming care is maternal and simply from nature obscures all the social incentives/coercion with their wide range of outcomes. Care has limits with difficult decisions over responsibilities, including “prisoners of love” emotional attachments.
ii) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776):
--Now we have the (naïve) moral philosophy context for the infamous quote which vulgar economists cherry-pick:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.…The foundations of markets require social norms of honesty/good-will/trust (“Invisible Handshake”) enough for buyers and sellers to complete exchanges (and not conspire/cheat) as complete strangers. (This also reveals the permanence of state violence in capitalism, to protect property rights).
--The book title Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? A Story About Women and Economics is illustrative. The “Invisible Hand” of markets would not have any labour without the “Invisible Heart” of care-work.
--Crucially, the benefits of care-work are not captured in the immediate market exchange (thus, “externalities”), so competitors on the market want to cut the costs of the “care penalty”. This is such a tragedy because the external benefits can be captured on the community level (esp. long-term). Care-work that enters the market are notoriously perverse, with US’s healthcare/education/childcare/elderly care as glaring examples.
…The actual goal of social services is communism (i.e. “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”: quality services accessible for everyone in need…an interesting paradox I think about working in public health within a capitalist society). Market logic, in contrast, is one-dollar-one-vote, so poor people do not have value. Privatized social services only seem “efficient” because of selection, where they exclude those most in need (ex. US’s obscenely costly and exclusionary private health insurance). In the US, this class discrimination gets compounded with race discrimination, ex. exclusionary school funding leading to re-segregation.
--Our pro-capitalist economic measures reflect its priorities, with stock prices and GDP growth reflecting the health of the rich and their short-term pillaging (at whatever costs). Measuring social health would require focusing on access to public health/education/basic needs, as well as building human capabilities/communities (care/civic participation)/long-term environmental health, subtracting the costs (which capitalism find most profitable, including military industrial complex/speculative gambling/addiction).
--Furthermore, actions can change motivations. Cooperation builds trust, a virtuous cycle. Ruthless competition, like an arms race, is a vicious cycle.
…see comments for the rest of the review:
"3) Reform's Protectionism"
"4) Neoliberalism's Disruptions"
"5) Progressives' Future?"
May 9, 2019
I’ll never stop recommending “The Invisible Heart”... I recommend it to everyone but especially to all the women in my life! It was healing for me to read because I have been thinking about these ideas for years but didn’t know how to articulate them. This book made me rethink everything I thought I knew about economics and how society treats women’s work and workers.
November 29, 2020
استدلال محوری کتاب این است که اقتصاد بازار نمیتواند به همه سود برساند، خصوصا به زنان، کودکان. فولبر نشان میدهد که چطور دست نامرئی آدام اسمیت ارزشهای غیر ملموس / قابل اندازهگیری، همچون مراقبت و نگرانیهای اجتماعی را بی ارزش میکند
کتاب به سه بخش تقسیم میشود: تئوری، خطمشی و استراتژیهایی برای آینده.
فصول نظری به تضعیف پایههای این فرضیه اقتصادی متعارف میپردازد که اگر همه ما نفع شخصیمان را دنبال کنیم، خودبهخود وضع همگان بهتر میشود.
بخش دوم کتاب به بررسی نحوه تکامل روابط میان خانواده و دولت میپردازد و تضادها و تفاهمات میان آنها را توضیح میدهد.
بخش پایانی کتاب به آینده نظر دارد و تاثیر فزاینده رقابت بینالمللی و عواقب آن برای خانواده و دولت را بررسی میکند. و مینویسد ما باید نظارتی مردمی بر فرایند جهانیسازی اعمال کنیم.
فولبر کار مراقبت را اینطور تعریف میکند: کار مراقبت از دیگری بر اساس چهره به چهره است در قالب مناسباتی که افراد معمولا با اسم کوچک یکدیگر را صدا میزنند و به دلایلی که متضمن محبت و احترام است. بخشی از این کار، لااقل تا حدودی، با پرداخت مستقیم پول یا به صورت بخشی از پول که به دیگری داده شده، جبران میشود. بخشی از این کار هم اصلا با پول جبران نمیشود…. مراقبت از دیگران به خصوص از ان جهت نوع مهمی از کار است که تاثیر مستقیمی بر رفاه عاطفی ما دارد.
دغدغههای فولبر در بخشهای زیادی از این کتاب را باید دغدغههای اقتصادی فهمید. او حول مفهوم کار مراقبتی حرف میزند که در گذشته بحرانی نبود چرا که زنان را میشد در خانه نگه داشت. اما با زنانه شدن کار بحث بحران و کسری مراقبت هم پیش میاید.
فولبر در این کتاب بطور دقیقی دکترین بازار آزاد مبنی بر اینکه حداکثر کردن نفع شخصی منجر به خیر عمومی میشود را رد میکند و تعصبات جنسیتی این تفکر را برملا میکند. او درباره حوزههایی مثل مراقبت از کودکان و کهنسالان بحث میکند که تعیین کیفیت خدمات دشوار است و واگذاری کار به منطق سود فاجعه درست میکند. او مادران مجرد و فقیری را مثال میزند که اگر بخواهند با چشم برهمزدنی و با فرستادن بچهها پیش پدرشان یا پرورشگاه میتوانند وضعیت اقتصادی خود را بهبود دهند اما چنین نمیکنند، یعنی مطابق منطق بازار عمل نمیکنند. در اقتصاد به این کارها میگویند رفتار غیرعقلانی. به عبارت دیگر منطق بازار به مردان برای بیاعتنایی به مسئولیتهای پدرانهشان پاداش میدهد و آنها هم کارراهه شغلی خوبی میسازند و کسی هم متعجب نمیشود.
او نشان میدهد در این سیستم تامینکنندگان مراقبت (که اغلب زنانند) به لحاظ اقتصادی در موقعیت نازلی قرار دارند چرا که اخلاقا و احساسا به کارشان وابستهاند. مثلا زنان نمیتوانند برای اینکه شوهرشان مسئولیتهای نگهداری از بچه را با آنها تقسیم کنند اعتصاب کنند. کارهای مراقبتی مزدی نیز در پایینترین رتبههای سلسلهمراتب اجتماعی کار قرار داره مثلا در ایالات متحده پارکبانها معمولا دریافتی بهتری از کارگران مهدکودک دارند.
قلب نامرئی به تئوریها و تاریخی که حول ارزیابی کار زنان وجود دارد میپردازد. تمرکز کتاب بر بیعدالتی ذاتی تقسیم کار جنسیتی مردسالارانه است که مسئولیت مراقبت که اغلب زنان میدهند را طبیعی جلوه میدهد در عین حال آن را بیارزش میشمارد. در اقتصاد سرمایهداری کاری که در بازار قابل معامله نباشد بی ارزش است. در تولید ناخالص داخلی هم حساب نمیشود. (اساسا یک دلیل عمده پرداختن و شاخ و برگ دادن به ایده مادری همینه. یعنی وقتی در اقتصاد کار زنان بی ارزش باشه خب باید یک جوری قانعشون کرد که این همه زحمت و مسئولیت را قبول کنند. چی بهتر از اینکه بگی بهشت زیر پای مادران است)
در اپیزو�� ۱۳ پادکست هنگامه این کتاب را مرور کردهام
Want to read
July 14, 2007I've seen Nancy speak a number of times and it was mind-blowing, but I've only read a few excerpts of this so far.
September 17, 2024
lowkey this rocked but it did make me feel like the most annoying person ever when i had to describe the book. “it’s a feminist critique of popular economics theories” okay lib. covers division of labor, welfare programs, unpaid domestic labor, and more. what else could you want?
July 24, 2018
An impassioned case for rethinking economics along humanistic lines that upends a good deal of conventional wisdom, though some of it will be familiar to students of feminism, gender, and work.
July 10, 2025
Great for understanding both contemporary women's struggles (globally, not just within western societies) and how macro-economics work.
January 18, 2016
I read the novel based on the suggestions of my economics TA. I told him that I wanted to be more cultured in the society around us, and was looking for something to do over the mid-semester break.
The book is a bit dry in the sense that it's more of persuasive and opinionated dissertation rather than an actual story with a plot line. I guess I didn't know what to expect, but the author writes with the knowledge and confidence of experience, which is helpful in learning more about society and how it works.
Bottom line: very informative, not the easiest thing to digest, but still very interesting to think about. And applicable in viewing everyday life.
The book is a bit dry in the sense that it's more of persuasive and opinionated dissertation rather than an actual story with a plot line. I guess I didn't know what to expect, but the author writes with the knowledge and confidence of experience, which is helpful in learning more about society and how it works.
Bottom line: very informative, not the easiest thing to digest, but still very interesting to think about. And applicable in viewing everyday life.
March 10, 2016
I read this book for a senior women's studies seminar, it took me forever to finally get the point trying to be made. When I finally understood this book made me love and really become interested in economics.
Want to read
March 1, 2009suggested by Andra
January 2, 2011
A must read.
June 11, 2025
Clear and unpretentious, strong structure.
September 27, 2015
As soon as you progress through the book you understand the content better.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews