Introduction

Neoliberalism seems to mean many different things depending on one’s vantage
point.
— Aihwa Ong¹

Only an interconnected, analytically diverse, cross-fertilizing and expansive left can seize this moment to lead us elsewhere.”
— Lisa Duggan²

The interrelated social processes that have come to cluster under the term “neoliberalism” can provide important insights into the social and cultural context of contemporary feminist movements and their struggles for social justice. In order to forge connections among seemingly discrete social issues and practices, feminists need an analysis of the full and complex context of gender relations—not just how gender is related to other social relations like those of race, class, and nation, but how the issues that affect life chances and social possibilities are related to one other. For example, it is not unusual to say that addiction and violence are interconnected issues, but a consideration of how gender serves to forge sets of relations among these issues is less common. Similarly, it is well recognized that race and class have a significant effect on how drug addiction is treated (put simply, white people with class privilege go to clinics, while impoverished blacks and Latinos go to court), but tracing these connections across gender and national lines is surprisingly difficult. Several years ago, Hillary Clinton made news when, as Secretary of State, she named the seemingly obvious fact that drug violence in Mexico was related to the demand created by drug use in the United States.³ Of course, Secretary Clinton didn’t mention that while drug use is evenly spread across the US population, the criminalization of drug use is sharply focused on African Americans.⁴ Nor did she note that between 2000 and 2009 (the year she made her remarks), the incarceration of women increased at a faster rate than the incarceration of men, despite the fact that the vast majority of women in prison are there for nonviolent offenses and are more likely than incarcerated men to be convicted of property or drug crimes.⁵ Nor did she make connections between US drug policy and the spread of militarism that makes the “war on drugs” more literal than metaphoric, a policy approach that has been criticized by feminists like Cynthia Enloe.⁶ In other words, naming a seemingly obvious connection made headlines, even as any number of related connections that can have devastating effects on people’s lives remained unspoken and have continued to remain, all too often, unanalyzed.

The concept of “neoliberalism” has been used widely as an analytic framework for naming the connections that are part and parcel of gender justice, but the very breadth of possibility that makes the term potentially helpful in creating justice also makes it a difficult term to define and put into action. This issue of The Scholar & Feminist Online looks at various ways of defining and deploying “neoliberalism” as a means of contributing to movements for social justice. In a series of short papers, along with videos and photo essays, the contributors weave together a set of connections across issues and social relations while elaborating new ways of understanding the contexts in which injustice and justice are created.

What is Neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism can be understood as a set of economic policies, as a political project, or as a time period that frames both economics and politics and that covers the last decades of the twentieth and first decades of the twenty-first centuries. In this issue of S&F Online, we take up the term and its meanings, contradictions, promise, and limitations for analysis. However we understand neoliberalism, its lived effects have been creating a world marked not just by growing income inequality, but also by increasing precariousness for a wide range of people—pretty much anyone who finds themselves among the “99 percent.”⁷ As Occupy Wall Street has emphasized, the past several decades have marked a shift from industrial to finance capitalism, and that shift has been accompanied by a move toward increasingly precarious employment and decreasingly generous social safety nets, all of which create a sense of “precarity” for the majority of people. Economies have become constituted by temporary, contingent, flexible, intermittent, or otherwise casual forms of labor.⁸ Thus, jobs are no longer marked by the security or benefits of unionized, long-term contracts, but are individualized and temporary, so that no one can be certain of access to employment or, if employed, of the duration of a job. But precarity goes beyond the conditions of employment itself to forms of security that once accompanied employment, including health care, paid sick leave, paid family leave, and childcare (although many of these forms of care were less available in the United States than in other industrialized countries). These connections between precarity and unavailability or instability in caring relations bring gender into the center of any analysis of neoliberalism, but these connections are rarely made. In fact, the story of neoliberalism is often told without much reference to gender at all, despite the fact that the time period named “neoliberal” in this narrative is precisely that of shifting gender relations.⁹

Although periodizations vary, many scholars locate the beginning of neoliberalism in the 1970s. In other words, it emerged during the very period when social movements dedicated to changing gender relations and sexual possibilities were extremely active and also highly contested. To give just one example of this convergence, geographer David Harvey locates the crystallization of neoliberalism in the United States and Britain in 1978-1980 (the same years in which the Moral Majority was founded as a conservative answer to changes brought about by the social movements of the sixties and seventies), declaring these years to be “a revolutionary turning point in the world’s social and economic history.”¹⁰ Other theorists, such as Marcus Taylor (2006) and Naomi Klein (2008), locate the advent of neoliberalism earlier, with the overthrow of Salvador Allende as president of Chile in 1973, and the imposition of new economic policies promoted by the Chicago School of economic thought.¹¹ In a complex feedback loop, ideas incubated in the United States became part of an experiment in Chile that was variously aided and abetted by the United States and its security forces. The Chilean dictatorship of Augustus Pinochet then produced a set of practices and policies that helped to form neoliberalism in the United States.

Commentators like Harvey, Marcus, or Klein rarely note the coincidence of the global development of neoliberalism with major public arguments over social relations like gender, race, and sexuality; yet this coincidence can be understood as socially significant. A variety of analyses have now been produced that detail the role of gender in the development of the “welfare state” that preceded neoliberalism. For example, the historical sociologist Theda Skocpol has developed a multicausal understanding of the welfare state in relation to gender, most prominently, as well as in relation to other axes of social difference.¹² Meanwhile, the historian Maureen Fitzgerald has shown how Protestant domination and discrimination against Catholic immigrants were central to the formation of the welfare state and its bureaucracy, which grew in part through ideas about the “welfare” of Catholic children that supported the practice of removing them from their homes and placing them with Protestants.¹³ And the historian Marisa Chapell has demonstrated how the idea of the “family wage” that undergirded arguments for providing welfare presumed a white, middle-class “family”—a presumption that set the terms for later arguments for welfare reform.¹⁴

Despite the extensive historical documentation of these types of connections between cultural and social relations (such as gender, race, religion, and sexuality on the one hand and economic and political systems on the other) the major schools of thought about neoliberalism tend to reinforce divisions rather than make connections. For neo-Marxists, neoliberalism is an agenda of upward economic redistribution, one that is characterized by structural adjustment policies which have been enforced by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and which have targeted the economies of countries within Latin America, Asia, and, since 2008, Europe. For Foucaultians, neoliberalism has been imagined as a cultural project, premised upon a shift toward governmentalities that merge market and state imperatives and which produce self-regulating “good subjects” who embody ideals of individual responsibility. And for political theorists, neoliberalism has often been conjured as a new mode of statecraft, with the privatization of formerly public goods and services, the shift from the welfare state to a carceral state focused on imprisonment and national security, and the attendant rise of new governing institutions (including NGOs and corporate entities) as core features.¹⁵

Significantly, scholars of gender and sexuality have often sought to resuture the divisions among these approaches by emphasizing what Lisa Duggan has described as “the dense interrelations” among neoliberalism’s economic and cultural projects—projects that invoke a range of social relations including those of gender, sex, race, and nation.¹⁶ Writing about the World Bank in Ecuador in the 1990s, for example, Kate Bedford has suggested that the promotion of complementary love within heterosexual couples was a central part of the Bank’s push to embed markets in more sustainable ways.¹⁷ In her ethnographic study of the Grameen Bank’s heralded microcredit program in Bangladesh, Lamia Karim has similarly demonstrated how microlending programs relied on, and ultimately came to reinforce, preexisting gender inequities.¹⁸ Various feminist and queer scholars have examined the intertwined economic, gendered, and sexual interests that coalesce in corporate campaigns to appropriate seemingly progressive causes such as LGBT rights and the fight against breast cancer, or in the neoliberal state’s appropriation of formerly liberationist discourses (of feminism and queerness) in fomenting “sexual nationalisms,” carceral politics, and securitized borders.¹⁹

Background Conversations

In the fall of 2012, the Barnard Center for Research on Women (BCRW) convened an international workshop to extend these discussions by considering the economic, cultural, and political dimensions of neoliberalism as intertwined entities; by locating the place of gender and sexuality within these transformations; and by considering the implications of this imbrication for social justice projects worldwide. To this end, we assembled an extraordinary group of scholars, from diverse backgrounds and regions, who were fluent in forging connections across multiple theoretical and empirical terrains. They work on sites that have typically been approached as separate fields of scholarship and action, such as the prison-industrial complex, migration and border control, sexual labor, domestic work, and reproductive rights. The goal of the workshop was to trace some of the specific connections among fields while also maintaining a focus on broader social contexts. By so doing, we hoped to come to a better understanding of the social dynamics that create inequality and insecurity, as well as the possibilities that exist for creating social change.

In addition to refining our analysis of neoliberalism, the workshop sought to extend a series of conversations already taking place at Barnard, and to make sense of dramatic transformations that were happening in the world. In 2007, the Barnard Center for Research on Women initiated a series of projects interrogating the linkages between sexual and economic justice, “Toward a Visions of Sexual and Economic Justice,” led by Kate Bedford,²⁰ and a collaboration with the activist group Queers for Economic Justice that produced “A New Queer Agenda,”²¹ and the Desiring Change report.²² Another conversation had been initiated via a 2009 faculty seminar on inequality in New York, in which faculty from various disciplines sought to forge cross-issue connections between subjects of contemporary concern such as homelessness and addiction, education and poverty, gentrification and policing. Coming out of these conversations, it became clear to us that we needed to situate the case of New York in terms of a broader global field—not only to better understand the particular social phenomena at hand, but also as a way of challenging the self-evidence of our own theoretical constructs. Neoliberalism means different things in Manhattan and Buffalo, in Seoul and in Buenos Aires. How do these different meanings diverge from as well as inform one another?

Not surprisingly, a powerful spur to these considerations was provided by the 2008 economic crisis and growing concerns about what this crisis foreshadowed. Yet most of the debates that were taking place about the collapse of the financial markets and the austerity politics that ensued soon after were narrowly focused and did not pursue the types of connections that we were keenly interested in exploring.²³ Moreover, to the extent that gender and sexuality were mentioned at all in such discussions, they were generally considered to be epiphenomenal in nature (in social scientific parlance, they constituted the “dependent variable” of analysis). Commentators had, for example, noted the effects of the crisis upon particular gendered constituencies, such as female workers and the poor. As with previous critiques of the gendered consequences of economic globalization, there was also a separate literature that focused on gender, including the consequences of intensified austerity measures for female labor in the context of global chains of care, women’s migration, gender-stratified labor markets, and sexual commodification.²⁴

While accounts of the gendered implications of contemporary political-economic transformations are certainly essential, this workshop aimed to consider how neoliberal currents appeared when taken as co-constituitive with questions of gender and sexuality, rather than positing the latter as simply derivative. We considered, for example, how we might connect the global reallocation of various forms of capital to emergent forms of sexual regulation and policing. We also sought to link longstanding gendered inequities to the push towards neoliberal familialism (with gender serving as neither “cause” nor “effect,” but rather as context). And we discussed the circumstances under which feminism itself has increasingly become intertwined in global circuits of economic and political power. By tracing these and other connections, we hoped to be able to better situate the most recent economic crisis in terms of broader neoliberal transformations, of which the aftereffects of 2008 were only the latest manifestation. In short, forging an analysis of neoliberalism that could traverse issues, fieldsites, and interpretive frameworks—and in which the operations of gender and sexuality were posited as central to these linkages—was our primary ambition for this project.

We took up these questions not only in order to produce better analyses, but also in the hopes of contributing to various activist engagements with neoliberalism as part of movements for social justice. Some of the most exciting social movements of recent decades have focused on neoliberalism as the framework for comprehending contemporary forms of injustice. These include the pioneering “anti-globalization” movement of the 1990s, which often focused on transnational economic governance systems like the World Trade Organization, whose 1999 meeting was the target of the “Battle for Seattle” by anti-globalization activists. They also encompass activist efforts that have been simultaneously local and global, like the Zapatista movement in Mexico with its slogan, “Against Neoliberalism and For Humanity;” as well as the World Social Forum, first held in Brazil in 2001, whose slogan is “Another World is Possible.” Examples can also be found through the anti-precarity movements of the first part of the twenty-first century and in the uprisings of this second decade, from Asia and the Middle East through European countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.²⁵ The inspiration offered by many of these movements is the possibility of connecting people across time, space, and issues, even when the movements themselves are not completely successful in achieving this goal. In convening the workshop on Gender, Justice, and Neoliberal Transformations at Barnard, we were committed to a similar vision of political possibility, and to ideals of broad-based social connection.

Continuing Conversations: Contents of this Issue

The articles and multimedia projects collected in this issue of S&F Online are divided into four sections, each of which corresponds to one of the four general themes that we asked participants to think about in anticipation of the workshop. Despite spanning a broad range of geographic locations, substantive domains, and disciplinary perspectives, the pieces assembled here share several common features. First, many of the contributions not only attempt to synthesize the political-economic and cultural components of neoliberal change, but also try to reflect upon various tensions, discontinuities, and contradictions within these. This is particularly evident in Part One, “What is Neoliberalism?,” which begins with two brief videos describing neoliberalism’s substantive contours and contradictions. These videos offer both brief definitions of neoliberalism and an initial exploration of some of the paradoxes that become more easily visible when we think across contexts and issues. They also provide a good introduction to the topic for anyone who is new to the study of neoliberalism.

In the first essay of this section, Teresa Gowan points to the contradictory uses of the term “neoliberalism” itself, noting how different theoretical lineages, “based on fundamentally different ideas about the nature of political power, barely speak to each other.” She suggests that some of these contradictions might be usefully resolved by bringing some of these theoretical frameworks into relation with each other through close investigation of substantive issues (such as addiction and poverty, her own substantive foci). Sealing Cheng, meanwhile, observes at least three distinct contradictions of neoliberalism based on her research with Korean sex workers in New York City: state postures of amorality that are coupled with conservative moral projects; the depoliticization of risk simultaneous with a hyperpolitization of national security; and the celebration of humanitarianism matched with “the concomitant and continuous ravaging of vulnerable populations.” While Miranda Joseph points to the disparate distribution of neoliberal “accountability” in social space, Neferti X. M. Tadiar calls attention to the “uneven times of neoliberalism” as both a sociocultural logic and as a periodizing schema. In this vein, she contrasts the paradigmatic “investor-subject” of the Global North with “modalities of living of disposable, surplus people struggling in conditions of waste, warehousing, and abandonment” (akin to Craig Willse’s notion of the transformation of certain lives into “raw material to be labored on”). Mario Pecheny, further emphasizing the ambiguities of neoliberalism as a global periodizing concept, suggests that in the Latin American case, the term “post-neoliberal” might in fact be a more apt descriptor of the current political, economic, and cultural moment.

The contributions compiled in Part Two, “How is it Lived?,” offer diverse empirical elaborations of some of these very same tensions. Svati P. Shah, for example, elucidates the notion of neoliberalism’s profound social unevenness through her research on Mumbai’s day-wage labor markets, in which, “there is a clear double standard at work in easing barriers to the migration of capital, through decreased tariffs on foreign investment and international agreements like NAFTA, while increasing the barriers to cross-border migration affecting especially landless economic migrants.” In his discussion of neoliberal jurisprudence and drug courts, Kerwin Kaye emphasizes the array of inequalities that have stretched across diverse facets of urban life over the course of the last three decades, focusing on a criminal justice system that is so unequal that only the racialized poor get punished for “drug crimes” in the first place. Thus, they are the only ones targeted for the liberal neoliberal alternative of coercive “rehabilitation.” Examining the paradigmatic neoliberal “disaster zone” of Detroit, Mark Padilla demonstrates the ways in which social inequalities become psychically incorporated, devising the term “spatial stigma” to refer to the experiences of the young and disenfranchised who inhabit the city’s most economically decimated regions (the notion of “spatial stigma” is further illustrated in the striking photovoice images that follow his essay). Kelly Moore similarly departs from formal analyses of neoliberalism to examine “the uneven and gendered emotional landscape of a contemporary form of US neoliberalism” by investigating prevailing styles of exercise and eating. Ana Amuchástegui, meanwhile, looks at reproductive rights in the contemporary Mexican context of structural adjustment policies. How are subjectivities changed by contradictory policies of extending rights while privatizing state services? Providing further empirical bolstering for the neoliberal contradictions identified by Cheng in part one, Denise Brennan describes the violence that migrant workers identified under the humanitarian rubric of “trafficking” must undergo during the course of being “rescued.” A more diffuse form of violence—that which has been wrought by petro-capitalism via “the slow catastrophe of repetitious wasting”—is conjured by Jackie Orr in her powerful photo essay which concludes this section, based on images taken in Grand Isle, Louisiana, a frontline in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In Part Three, “Connections Across Sites and Locations,” the contributors explicitly call for a reconsideration of relations between neoliberalism’s political, economic, and cultural domains, as well as of certain core terms in contemporary social theory. The section opens with a photo essay by Sealing Cheng that is based on a collaborative photovoice project in Seoul, South Korea, documenting the 2009 demolition of the city’s red-light district. The photographs, which were taken by sex workers who previously lived in the district, highlight the intersection of multiple forms of social and economic restructuring, and demonstrate the extent to which the goals of the city’s gentrifiers and antiprostitution activists came to be mutually reinforcing. In a similar fashion, Sara R. Farris’s essay seeks to draw connections between the current economic crisis, gendered migration streams, and emerging patterns of caring labor. Lamia Karim’s research on microfinance programs in Bangladesh, meanwhile, demonstrates the connections between “the most intimate sphere of private life, the home and women, with the larger world of markets.” Michelle Murphy traces the figure of “the Girl” as an ascendant “transnational figure of rescue and investment,” while Kate Bedford provides “a feminist political economy of risk” by studying gambling liberalization. Elizabeth Esch, importantly, suggests a rethinking of the rubric of ‘transnationalism,’ noting that the term is at least as “shot through with contradiction” and hierarchy as any other identity category. Concluding this section, Patricia Ticineto Clough calls for a rethinking of frequently postulated divides between the public and the private, and between the psychic and social. Such a rethinking is elaborated upon in her collaborative video project, Ecstatic Corona, which straddles conventional divisions between the political and the intimate, between past and present, and between ethnography, poetry, and song.

Finally, in Part Four, “After Austerity: Ways Forward for Politics and Critique,” contributors consider the implications of a reinvigorated analysis of neoliberalism for contemporary activist projects of diverse stripes. Sandra K. Soto seeks to forge a response to contemporary anti-immigrant politics in Arizona that draws on legacies of feminist/queer analysis. Premilla Nadasen argues that despite the many negative repercussions of neoliberalism, “the dramatic disruptions of the social order” may in fact offer avenues for poor women’s collective mobilization. Noting the co-constitution of urban “redevelopment” projects and hegemonic forms of gay identity, Christina B. Hanhardt takes up the challenge of non-normativity as it has been manifested in social movements past and present. In like fashion, Siobhan Brooks turns to the alternative forms of politics practiced among black lesbians and transgender women in North Philadelphia, who, instead of “coming out,” choose to “stay in,” remaining in their inner-city black/Latina communities and working together on behalf of jobs, schools, and healthcare. Abosede A. George finds inspiration in the new forms of sexual politics she witnessed during her research with African immigrant-activists in New York, whose multidimensional analyses of sexual violence may allow us “to construct historically aware, but viable and organic new bonds of solidarity.” Pursuing one of the themes suggested in her photo essay, Jackie Orr boldly challenges us to conjure new forms of political fantasy and of temporal experience. Finally, Dean Spade concludes this section, as well as the special issue, with the video presentation, Impossibility Now, which points to some of the forms that a “critical and discerning” trans politics might take. Such a politics is simultaneously committed to anticolonialism, antisexism, and antiracism, offering a solidaristic approach to action in the context of neoliberal transformations.

Our hope as editors is that the collection as a whole will help to articulate how such solidarities might be built and what visions they might enable. If neoliberalism is the current context for action, what might gender justice become? The set of connections raised by reading among and across the various offerings in this issue also necessarily raises the most important question of all—if another world is possible, what kind of world would we desire it to be?

We are grateful to Clare Decoteau for her engagement with this project and to Lisa Duggan and Rebecca Jordan-Young for contributing such helpful insights to the “Gender, Justice, and Neoliberal Transformations” workshop. Thanks also to Ariane Rinehardt for her assistance, and to the BCRW staff, particularly Pamela Phillips, and also Catherine Sameh, Hope Dector, and Anne Jonas, for their help in developing both the workshop and this issue of S&F Online.

1. Aihwa Ong, Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty (Durham: Duke UP, 2006) 1. [↩]
2. Lisa Duggan, The Twilight of Equality: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy (Boston: Beacon, 2003) xxii. [↩]
3. Missing endnote [↩]
4. Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2012). [↩]
5. The Sentencing Project, Women in the Criminal Justice System—Briefing Sheets (PDF) May 2007. [↩]
6. Cynthia Enloe, Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). [↩]
7. “We are the 99%” became the slogan of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Fall 2011, used in both press coverage (Seltzer 2011) about the movement and by activists online, particularly through the Tumblr, “We Are the 99%”: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/. See Sarah Seltzer, “Where Are the Women at Occupy Wall Street? Everywhere—and They’re Not Going Away,” Nation 26 Oct. 2011. [↩]
8. Ching Kwan Lee and Yelizavetta Kofman, “The Politics of Precarity: Views Beyond the United States,” Work and Occupations 39.4 (2012): 388-408. [↩]
9. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007). [↩]
10. Harvey 2007: 1. [↩]
11. Marcus Taylor, From Pinochet to the “Third Way”: Neoliberalism and Transformation in Chile (London: Pluto Press, 2006); Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York: Picador, 2008). [↩]
12. Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992). [↩]
13. Maureen Fitzgerald, Habits of Compassion: Irish Catholic Nuns and the Origins of New York’s Welfare System, 1895-1920 (Champagne-Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2006). [↩]
14. Marisa Chappell, The War on Welfare: Family, Poverty, and Politics in Modern America (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2010). [↩]
15. Harvey 2007 provides the classic neo-Marxist account. For prominent Foucaultian versions, see Nikolas S. Rose, Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999); Wendy Brown, Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005); and Michel Feher, “Self-Appreciation; or, The Aspirations of Human Capital,” Public Culture 21.1 (2008): 21-41. Social science perspectives focused upon state transformations include Loic Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Durham: Duke UP, 2009.); David Lewis and David Mosse, eds., Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies (Bloomfield: Kumarian, 2006); and Lynne A. Haney, “Introduction: Gender, Welfare, and States of Punishment,” Social Politics 11.3 (2004): 333–362. For helpful summaries of the above distinctions, see Simon Springer, “Neoliberalism as Discourse: Between Foucauldian Political Economy and Marxian Postructuralism,” Critical Discourse Studies 9.2 (2012): 133-147 and Loic Wacquant “Three Steps to a Historical Anthropology of Actually Existing Neoliberalism,” Social Anthropology 20.1(2012): 66-79. [↩]
16. Duggan 2003. [↩]
17. Kate Bedford, Developing Partnerships: Gender, Sexuality, and the Reformed World Bank (Minnesota: U of Minnesota P, 2009). [↩]
18. Lamia Karim, Microfinance and Its Discontents: Women in Debt in Bangladesh (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2011). [↩]
19. On corporate-driven “equality” politics in the LGBT movement, see Duggan 2003; Miranda Joseph, Against the Romance of Community (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2002); and Alexandra Chasin, Selling Out: The Gay and Lesbian Movement Goes to Market (New York: Palgrave, 2000). On the corporate “pinking” of the breast cancer movement, see Gayle A. Sulik, Pink Ribbon Blues: How Breast Cancer Culture Undermines Women’s Health (New York: Oxford UP, 2011); Barbara Ehrenreich, Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America (New York: Picador, 2009); and Samantha King, Pink Ribbons, Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2006). The literature on the imbrication of seemingly progressive sexual agendas in nationalist projects is ample, but for a sampling of perspectives on these intersections in US and Western European contexts see: Miriam Ticktin, “Sexual Violence as the Language of Border Control: Where French Feminist and Anti-immigrant Rhetoric Meet,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33.4 (2008): 863–89; Patricia Clough and Craig Willse, “Human Security/National Security: Gender Branding and Population Racism,” Beyond Biopolitics: Essays on the Governance of Life and Death, Patricia Clough and Craig Willse, eds., (Durham: Duke UP, 2011) 46-64; Eric Fassin, “From Criticism to Critique,” History of the Present 1.2(2011): 265-274; Sara R. Farris, “Femonationalism and the “Regular” Army of Labor Called Migrant Women,” History of the Present 2.2 (2012): 184-199; Jasbir K. Puar, Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (Durham: Duke UP, 2007); and Joan Scott, The Politics of the Veil (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007). On the mutual reinforcements between contemporary sexual and carceral politics, see Roger Lancaster, Sex Panic and the Punitive State (Berkeley: U of California P, 2010);. Elizabeth Bernstein, “Carceral Politics as Gender Justice? The ‘Traffic in Women’ and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime, Sex, and Rights,” Theory and Society 41 (2012): 233-259; Jinthana K. Haritaworn, “Queer Injuries: The Cultural Politics of ‘Hate Crimes’ in Germany,” Social Justice 37.1 (2011): 69-91; Kristin Bumiller, In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement against Sexual Violence (Durham: Duke UP, 2008).and Marie Gottschalk, The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006). [↩]
20. See S&F Online, Issue 7.3, “Toward a Visions of Sexual and Economic Justice” and New Feminist Solutions, Volume 4, “Towards a Vision of Sexual and Economic Justice.” [↩]
21. See S&F Online, Volume 10.1-10.2, “A New Queer Agenda.” [↩]
22. See New Feminist Solutions, Volume 7, “Desiring Change.” [↩]
23. See, e.g., David Grusky, Bruce Western, and Christopher Wimer, The Great Recession (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2011); Craig Calhoun and Georgi Derluguian, eds., The Deepening Crisis: Governance Challenges After Neoliberalism (Social Science Research Council and New York University Press, 2011); Gerald Friedman, Fred Moseley, and Chris Stuff, eds., The Economic Crisis Reader: Readings in Economics, Politics, and Social Policy from Dollars&Sense (The Economic Affairs Bureau, 2009). [↩]
24. See, e.g., Stephanie Seguino, “The Global Economic Crisis, Its Gender and Ethnic Implications, and Policy Responses,” Gender and Development, 18.2 (2010):179-199; Pun Ngai, Chris King, Chi Chan, and Jenny Chan, “The Role of the State, Labour Policy and Migrant Workers’ Struggles in Globalized China,” Global Labor Journal 1.1 (2009): 132-151; Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild, eds., Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy (New York: Metropolitan, 2002). [↩]
25. Some examples of the now extensive literature on these movements include: Benjamin Shepard and Ronald Hayduk, eds., From ACT UP to the WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization (London: Verso, 2002); Tom Mertes, A Movement of Movements: Is Another World Really Possible? (London: Verso, 2004); Susan George, Another World is Possible If…. (London: Verso, 2004); Jee, Kim, et. al., eds., Another World is Possible: Conversations in a Time of Terror (New Orleans: Subway & Elevated Press, 2002); Donatella della Porta, Globalization from Below: Transnational Activists and Protest Networks (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2006); and Kate Khatib, Margaret Killjoy, and Mike McGuire, We Are Many: Reflections on Movement Strategy from Occupation to Liberation (Oakland: AK Press, 2012). [↩]