I'm so happy to read this! I teach Federici most years and my students and I turn over some of the central problems/gifts of the text. It's so provocative, you could probably teach a whole course around it! Federici is not a historian but as a social theorist, she uses a selective European history to make some claims against Marx - or broadening Marx - in favour of transnational feminism (which is important and makes sense given her life's work). I agree that she does flatten the category woman to mean simply 'white, European women' even she writes about witch hunts, enclosures and attendant exploitation of women as a kind of universal primitive accumulation. She tries to resolve this contradiction by invoking - briefly - 'other' women, but the central problem remains; you can't craft a universal argument about women's exploitation and the rise of capitalism from a very particular sampling (Europe, which itself is more or less homogenous in her recounting). Or, perhaps you can, but I am less than convinced. Her argument about how the historical exploitation of women produces capitalism is compelling in its simplicity and power, even if not entirely accurate. It feels good, as a reader, to be convinced that such events had a productive power and weren't just meaningless tragedies. As you both point out, that actual history doesn't really line up with her timing nor does she engage the places where this might actually have been true(r) - the colonies (esp. the Caribbean and other hubs of the transatlantic slave trade). Scholars like Jennifer Morgan, Sasha Turner, and others make clear that the gendered impact of colonialism and transatlantic slavery totally reshaped ideas of enclosure, commodification, race, reproduction, and, ultimately, what 'primitive accumulation' looked like (at least from the seventeenth century forward).
There is so much good in this book, so much provocation, I love returning to it. Thanks for opening it for discussion in a forum like this.
PS: Akosua, I I support your desire to read The Tempest! I remember when Kamau Brathwaite (rip) taught the course 'Sycorax Aesthetics' at NYU and I often wondered how 'Caliban and the Witch' might read if Sycorax, rather than Caliban, was centered instead of rendered a nameless 'witch.'
Thank you for such a great response! And for participating in the book club. I agree with you re: the power of Federici's text, especially considering how influential it has been. I also know that part of the impact of the text is Federici forcefully setting herself apart from Marx (and Foucault), even when it might not seem like she's diverting from them so much. So I can't fault her for it too much. I think that was necessary for 'Caliban and the Witch' at the time she was writing and at the time it was being published. I REALLY do think this has to be the year I read 'The Tempest,' as well as Aimé Césaire's 'A Tempest' which I've had on my TBR list for years at this point.
I'm so happy to read this! I teach Federici most years and my students and I turn over some of the central problems/gifts of the text. It's so provocative, you could probably teach a whole course around it! Federici is not a historian but as a social theorist, she uses a selective European history to make some claims against Marx - or broadening Marx - in favour of transnational feminism (which is important and makes sense given her life's work). I agree that she does flatten the category woman to mean simply 'white, European women' even she writes about witch hunts, enclosures and attendant exploitation of women as a kind of universal primitive accumulation. She tries to resolve this contradiction by invoking - briefly - 'other' women, but the central problem remains; you can't craft a universal argument about women's exploitation and the rise of capitalism from a very particular sampling (Europe, which itself is more or less homogenous in her recounting). Or, perhaps you can, but I am less than convinced. Her argument about how the historical exploitation of women produces capitalism is compelling in its simplicity and power, even if not entirely accurate. It feels good, as a reader, to be convinced that such events had a productive power and weren't just meaningless tragedies. As you both point out, that actual history doesn't really line up with her timing nor does she engage the places where this might actually have been true(r) - the colonies (esp. the Caribbean and other hubs of the transatlantic slave trade). Scholars like Jennifer Morgan, Sasha Turner, and others make clear that the gendered impact of colonialism and transatlantic slavery totally reshaped ideas of enclosure, commodification, race, reproduction, and, ultimately, what 'primitive accumulation' looked like (at least from the seventeenth century forward).
There is so much good in this book, so much provocation, I love returning to it. Thanks for opening it for discussion in a forum like this.
PS: Akosua, I I support your desire to read The Tempest! I remember when Kamau Brathwaite (rip) taught the course 'Sycorax Aesthetics' at NYU and I often wondered how 'Caliban and the Witch' might read if Sycorax, rather than Caliban, was centered instead of rendered a nameless 'witch.'
Thank you for such a great response! And for participating in the book club. I agree with you re: the power of Federici's text, especially considering how influential it has been. I also know that part of the impact of the text is Federici forcefully setting herself apart from Marx (and Foucault), even when it might not seem like she's diverting from them so much. So I can't fault her for it too much. I think that was necessary for 'Caliban and the Witch' at the time she was writing and at the time it was being published. I REALLY do think this has to be the year I read 'The Tempest,' as well as Aimé Césaire's 'A Tempest' which I've had on my TBR list for years at this point.