«Normality was the problem!» Femminismi e Commoning nella riproduzione sociale della città

Titolo Rivista CRIOS
Autori/Curatori Stefania Ragozino, Gabriella Esposito De Vita, Stefania Oppido
Anno di pubblicazione 2024 Fascicolo 2022/24
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 8 P. 74-81 Dimensione file 595 KB
DOI 10.3280/CRIOS2022-024009
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The research is part of the intense relationship between feminisms and commoning, with the general aim of reflecting on the real and potential role of women in the experiences of mutualism that nourish forms of collective life and paths of re-appropriation of spaces, practices and rights in urban scenarios. A gendered vision is consistent with the theoretical foundations of commoning, a phenomenon perceived as an alternative to individualism and capitalist isolation, insofar as it is capable of giving voice to a new debate on a fairer and more effective management of resources and spaces. Through a critical reading of the literature on social reproduction, a vision of common reproduction is proposed with the ultimate aim of contributing to the debate on the need to generate new theories and urban models more consistent with current social challenges.

Keywords:teorie urbane, femminismi, commoning, beni comuni urbani, vita quotidiana, riproduzione comune

  1. Bezanson K. and Luxton M. (2006). Social reproduction: Feminist political economy challenges neo-liberalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.
  2. Bhattacharya T. (2017). Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression. London: Pluto Press.
  3. Binnie J. (2014). Relational comparison, queer urbanism and worlding cities. Geography Compass, 8(8): 590-599.
  4. Boler M. et al. (2014). Connective labor and social media: Women’s roles in the “leaderless” Occupy movement. Convergence, 20(4): 438-460.
  5. Borch C. and Kornberger M. (2015). Urban commons. Rethinking the city. London & New York: Routledge.
  6. Caffentzis G. (1999). On the notion of a crisis of social reproduction: A theoretical review. Women, development and labor of reproduction: Struggles and movements, 153-187.
  7. Caleo I. (2016). Re|Play the Commons. Pratiche e immaginazione politica nei movimenti culturali per i beni comuni. In Aa.Vv., (a cura di), Commons/Comune: geografie, luoghi, spazi, città. Firenze: Società di Studi Geografici.
  8. Daskalaki M., Fotaki M. and Simosi M. (2021). The gendered impact of the financial crisis: Struggles over social reproduction in Greece. Environment and Planning A, 53(4): 741-762. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X20922857
  9. Federici S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia. Federici S. (2012). Il Femminismo e la politica dei beni comuni. Deportate, esuli, profughe. Rivista telematica di studi sulla memoria femminile, 20, 6377.
  10. Federici S. (2018). Reenchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. New York: Pm Press.
  11. Federici S. (2020). Revolution at point zero: Housework, reproduction, and feminist struggle. New York: PM press.
  12. Festa D. (2015). La creatività del Comuni. In: Bernardi, C. et al., (a cura di), Fare Spazio. Pratiche del comune e diritto alla città. Milano: Mimesis Kosmos.
  13. Fraser N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100: 99117.
  14. Fraser N. (2017). Crisis of care? On the socialreproductive contradictions of contemporary capitalism. Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression, 2136.
  15. Gabauer A. et al. (2022). Care and the city: encounters with urban studies. London & New York: Taylor & Francis.
  16. Gillespie T. and Hardy K. (2021). Infrastructures of Social Repro 80 duction. A Feminist Urban Theory for our Time, 262284.
  17. Harvey D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. New York: Verso Books.
  18. Harvey D. and Le Roy C. (2011). Le capitalisme contre le droit à la ville: Néolibéralisme, urbanisation, résistances. Paris: Edition Amsterdam.
  19. Katsikana M. (2021). Gender in Resistance. A Feminist Urban Theory for our Time, 92114.
  20. Katz C. (1991). Sow What You Know: The Struggle for Social Reproduction in Rural Sudan. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81(3): 488514.
  21. Knierbein S. and Viderman T. (2018). Public space unbound: urban emancipation and the postpolitical condition. London & New York: Routledge.
  22. Łapniewska Z. (2016). Reading Elinor Ostrom through a Gender Perspective. Feminist Economics, 22(4): 129151.
  23. Lefebvre H. (1967). Le Droit à la ville. L’Homme et la société, (6): 2935.
  24. Lefebvre H. (2014). The critique of everyday life. London & New York: Verso Books.
  25. Massey D. B. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
  26. McDowell L. (1982). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 5972.
  27. Miraftab F. (2021). Global Restructuring of Social Reproduction and its Invisible Work in Urban Revitalization. A Feminist Urban Theory for our Time, 138161.
  28. Mitchell D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 108133.
  29. Mitchell K., Marston S. A. and Katz, C. (2012). Life’s work: Geographies of social reproduction. John Wiley and Sons.
  30. Ortiz Escalante S. and Gutiérrez Valdivia B. (2015). Planning from below: using feminist participatory methods to increase women’s participation in urban planning. Gender and Development, 23(1): 113126.
  31. Peake L. (2016). The twenty first century quest for feminism and the global urban. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1): 219227.
  32. Peake L. and Pratt G. (2017). Why women in cities matter. Urbanization in a Global Context, 276294.
  33. Podlashuc L. (2009). Saving women: Saving the commons. Ecosufficiency and global justice: Women write political ecology, 268290.
  34. Robinson J. (2013). Ordinary cities: between modernity and development. London & New York: Routledge.
  35. Roy A. (2016). What is urban about critical urban theory?. Urban Geography, 37(6): 810823.
  36. Ruddick S. et al. (2018). Planetary urbanization: An urban theory for our time? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(3): 387404.
  37. Tanyildiz G. S. et al. (2021). Rethinking Social Reproduction and the Urban, A Feminist Urban Theory for our Time. John Wiley & Sons.
  38. The Marxist Feminist Collective (2020). On Social Reproduction and the Covid19 Pandemic SEVEN THESES. - Available at: https://spectrejournal.com/seventhesesonsocialreproductionandthecovid19pandemic/ (Accessed: 12 De cember 2022).
  39. Viderman T. and Knierbein S. (2020). Affective urbanism: towards inclusive design praxis. Urban Design International, 25(1): 5362.
  40. Vittoria M. P. and Napolitano P. (2017). Comunità informali come «luoghi creativi» e drivers di produttività urbana. Il caso dei Centri Sociali a Napoli. Rivista economica del Mezzogiorno, 31(12): 343372.

Stefania Ragozino, Gabriella Esposito De Vita, Stefania Oppido, «Normality was the problem!» Femminismi e Commoning nella riproduzione sociale della città in "CRIOS" 24/2022, pp 74-81, DOI: 10.3280/CRIOS2022-024009