Home Is Where Left and Right Meet

Sharon June 27th, 2011

Russell Arben Fox has a completely fascinating essay about bringing Shannon Hayes’ work on radical homemaking to a Mormon women’s group.  He writes:

A couple of months ago, I had the pleasure of putting together a panel discussion (at this conference, with the wonderful people you see on the left) which took off, in many different directions, from Hayes’s insistence upon thinking seriously about just what “making” a simple, sustainable, spiritually-edifying “home” truly consisted of. What I wanted to do was plant some seeds of discussion (seeds which grow in surprising directions in Hayes’s book), presenting the “home” as something other than a unit of consumption, other than a place where individuals rest their heads and eat their meals and watch their television shows, all of which require ever-increasing (and often debt-driven) economic participation to keep going. In preparation for that, I asked a Mormon audience exactly what kind of “homemaking” and “enrichment” activities their local congregations still participate in, if any. The answers were, to say the least, revealing. And they should be–for some decades, extending for many years out beyond Mormonism’s 19th-century pioneer period, the ability to live frugally, to share resources and skills with family and friends so as to become self-sustaining, to basically dissent from the pursuit of wealth and growth, was an unstated principle of a great deal that Relief Society did. Enriching the home meant making it more tendable, more nuturable, more amenable to (one might say more “organic to”, but such language is unfortunately foreign to most American Mormons, whether in the 19th century or today) the work and production and play of those who live there, rather than more dependent upon the size of the paycheck brought home and the caprice of the market in general. That distant ideal remains a half-life existence throughout much of Mormon culture (and not just Mormons–Laura McKenna, who confessed herself highly attracted to much of Hayes’s call, has made clear her own disposition to the “pioneer virtues” of “making do or doing without” before as well).

Part of this story, of course, can’t be told without talking about Mormonism’s ultimately mostly abandoned effort to develop a truly alternative–more communitarian, more egalitarian, more localized–culture and economy in Utah. This is part of why I’d love to see Hayes’s book be the centerpiece of a Relief Society lesson: because in the mostly conservative, mostly middle- and upper-class white American Mormon church, Hayes’s righteous attacks on capitalism as an economic system which drives us to debt and competition, invades the sanctity of the home which consumer values and fears, and commodifies and individualizes our most intimate and emotionally connective choices…well, it might not go over too well. But then again, if it was stated by way of quoting 19th-century church leaders and passages of scripture which make essentially the same point, maybe some real enrichment could be possible.

What struck me as fascinating about Fox’s analysis is that it reveals the deep compatibility – and underlying anti-capitalist sentiment that structure what are often seen as antithetical parts of the political spectrum.  Now this is not news in a way.  Anyone who has joined a homesteading list, or attempted to study self-sufficiency skills, particularly traditionally female domestic skills like preserving food, fiber arts, and other domestic labor has probably noticed the confluence of hippies in peasant skirts with conservative Christian women in modest dress, anarchist women in black and orthodox Jewish women in long denim skirts, Republican farmwives from Montana and left-leaning urban farmers from New York City or Chicago, older women from churches in their crowns who kept the skills alive and young women trying to grasp them and learn.

The internet makes these comings together more possible, of course, but they aren’t the whole of the thing.  My neighborhood knitting group (which admittedly I rarely have time to attend) runs the political and religious spectrum, and ranges in age from an 11 year old working on her first scarf to a 55 year old also on her first scarf (her grandmother tried to teach her) to a recent immigrant in her 20s from east Africa on her first scarf (her first winter in upstate New York made evident the benefits of knitting)  to a host of experienced knitters ranging from 14 (we have two extraordinarily experienced and gifted young teenage knitters – one the daughter of a conservative Christian family who has been knitting since she was 7, the other the daughter of leftist Waldorf devotees knitting since she was 5 – both of them are best friends, and both  help me with complicated cables and knit about as easily as they breathe) to 92 and able to claim that she has knitted more than 500 sweaters in her lifetime!

The affirmation of the domestic sphere, of the informal economy and of women’s work is itself a radical act in a culture that assumes that one should purchase all goods and services once provided by the informal economy.  Any of you who have read _Depletion and Abundance_ will know that I consider the dismantling of the informal economy (which is the larger portion of the world economy, represent 3/4 of total economic activity) in the developed world and the undermining of the Global South’s informal economy to be a disaster in the making, as we run out of the fuel (and the ability to safely burn it, if such a thing can ever be said to have existed) that permitted this.

Fox’s article, with its exploration of the different ways that different communities speak of this loss, the different languages that add up to the same thing – a recognition that the privatization of the domestic sphere has undermined our basic safety.  Whether you speak in terms of conserving the past, of spiritual arguments of many kinds or in terms of peak oil and climate change, there is something fundamentally radical about every attempt to reclaim the home as a site of productivity, a place where economic security is created, rather than a sink for resources.

It is hard to overstate how radical this is – consider, for example, the economic implications for housing of a culture that values the land that houses are built on for their potential economic productivity.  Consider the danger to a consumer economy of a culture of making do and making it yourself – 70% of our economy is consumer activity.  The affirmation of the home as the center of things, as a site of complex resistance to the totalizing formal economy’s attempts to claim all of us is truly radical – and it is being affirmed on right and left, by Mormons and Pagans, by atheists and the orthodox of many stripes, by feminists and by traditionalists.

The transformation of the home into a site of production, redistribution and community is a threat to a totalizing formal economy that claims it needs all of everyone’s productivity all the time.  It is a threat to a model that says that neither men nor women can be released to stay home with a sick child or an elderly parent (yes, nominally you can, but only if you can afford it), to nurse a baby or even be there to cook dinner.  Both adults must be working at all times to increase productivity.  All children must be being trained at all times for future productivity.  The formal economy has claimed us, devoured the time we once spent on other things, and claimed our future as well.

The problem, as we have seen in the last few years is that the formal economy is very vulnerable – it depends on things that no one really controls.  Historically speaking as peasant economist Teodor Shanin and other economic historians have documented, in times when the formal economy fails, the informal economy – made up of domestic work, untaxed barter, volunteerism, family exchanges of resources and even the criminal economy – rises up to keep people fed.  It was the informal economy that in Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union averted starvation – even though conventional economic models argued people should be starving.

What Transition calls “reskilling” – what other people call by other names, including Christian homemaking and radical homemaking, and “doing it like Grandma used to” is actually the reinvention of the most important resource we may have for our future – the restoration of the informal economy.  It is a hugely political and hugely important act, being done by multiple ends of the political spectrum at once, and this matters.

At the same time, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t real and significant differences between how this is framed and established that matter a lot.  They matter to me personally obviously (for example that gay families not get short shrift and that women have the right to control their bodies) and they matter politically.  It isn’t the case that the Quiverfull Moms and the anarchists Moms are always going to agree – or that there aren’t some deep issues to be worked out if there is common ground to be found.

At the same time, given the critical importance of reinventing the damaged informal economy, this work is worth doing – moreover it already going on among people on each end of the political spectrum, through the middle and by people who could care less about politics but just want healthy food, a garden and a nice warm quilt to sleep under.  The very fact that this work is being done across the spectrum suggests that it is a site for organizing and work that could be expanded upon, grown and produce fruit – not easily or without considerable work, but then nothing really worth having ever comes but with that hard labor.


19 Responses to “Home Is Where Left and Right Meet”

  1. [...] has some thoughts about making the shift from consumption to production. In her recent blog post “Home is where the left and right meet” she talks about the growing informal economy. Interest in returning to “how grandma did [...]

  2. lisa says:

    For some years, my radical, atheist, farming self taught canning, cheesemaking, and butchering to the Relief Society in our area. Good times—though the picture I have of them with large bottles of vodka–for the making of cheap vanilla—is priceless!

  3. Jess says:

    I live in a city with a very high percentage of people live on financial assistance programs. I feel that if these people could become inspired to eat cheap wholesome food and grow as much of their produce as possible, it would help them with their health, with their sense of pride, and with their ability to work towards a better life.

    My husband believes that most people would rather be given a fish than taught to fish.

    What is your take on the subject?

  4. 4D says:

    Imagining,designing and nurturing home-focused bioregional efforts is true ecology. Okay, Shannon, Sharon and others~~ time to roll up the sleeves and start this unifying work of the commons. Who else is interested?

    I am calling for a gathering this fall to “save the seeds” for immeasurably bountiful future harvests and not just in our backyard gardens.

  5. Susan says:

    I am presently at home due to work related stress; the two articles you have posted both here and on Casaubon’s Book complement each other nicely and both relate to my present circumstances.

    You CAN’T be a good worker and contributor in the formal economy if the informal one is a disaster. SOMEbody has to be taking care of the home front! Which also means taking care of the people who live in that home front.

    Jess, your husband is right, but he’s right only because the present society encourages and rewards ‘takers’ over ‘givers’.

  6. Esmeralda says:

    What a great article. I’ve noticed this very thing- a huge spectrum of people interested in the same subjects- more frequently as the years roll by and it becomes ever more apparent that not only is self sufficiency nice, but will soon be reequired if we want to feed our families. As always, you’re very inspiring, thanks

  7. Eden Balfour says:

    Gibson-Graham posit the work in the informal economy as a site of anti-capitalist resistance. I love your validation and encouragement of this essential work.

  8. Did somebody say Mormon? :)

    My 98% Mormon neighborhood has been pulling together to teach each other everything from how to make a never fail pie crust, to how to can. The canning class was taught by Reed and I in our kitchen. I’ve had several neighbors tour my gardens. Others have given lessons on how to cook with beans, using coupons, etc.

    My success in trying to get an underground economy going in the special needs area and just within our neighborhood has had varying degrees of success. I’d LOVE to see more bartering going on.

    I was thrilled to have compiled Parker’s summer wardrobe for NOTHING as I took his outgrown Fall clothes to a consignment store traded them in and asked for credit to use toward new (to us) summer clothes. This year I’m stocking up for next year via yard sales.

    Ironically Utah is the only place I have ever lived where the size of your house determines your ‘coolness’ factor in more ways than one.

    Tammy and Parker
    @ParkerMama on Twitter

  9. MEA says:

    While in Ocean City last week, I took my daughter who is 11 with some interesting neuro ticks to the local history museum, where a very sweet and knowledge volunteer gave her a 2 hour tour. Catharine’s idea of a tour included lying down to get a floor level view of each room tableau, and pointing out from that vantage point the different sorts of irons by the stove — flat, sad, gophering, the fact that one huge container said “papricka” on it, which the guide had never notice, and a discussion about where it would have come from — not a family kitchen, which let to a discussion of which tasks were performed at home and which weren’t in those days — would you bake bread for just one person, or, if living in a town, go to the bakery for a loaf every few days.

    It’s good to see that sort of mental flexability. Keep looking towards the past.

  10. [...] Sharon Astyk points out, much of what has passed for “economic growth” over the last decades has [...]

  11. Do you people have a facebook fan webpage? I searched for one on facebook but couldn’t find one, I’d love to become a fan!

  12. It’s good to see that sort of mental flexability. Keep looking towards the past.

  13. After I initially commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a remark is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any approach you may remove me from that service? Thanks!

  14. Hi! I saw your blog on Bing and have liked checking it out. Thank you very much for the useful and detailed posts. I will be checking back.

  15. Of course, what a fantastic blog and educative posts, I will bookmark your site.Have an awsome day!

  16. I’ve been reading your web site for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from New Caney Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the great work!

  17. All good questions and it’s *GREAT* to ask them. We really do like answering sincere questions (and I think I speak for more than myself). This is precisely why we hang out at a place called “Yahoo Answers.” The only thing that gets frustrating is when people ask questions with no interest whatsoever in the answers!

  18. Val Saumier says:

    hello there, from time to time when I first visit this web page I get automatically redirected to another page which feels very strange. You may well want to take a look at why this is occurring! Take care

Leave a Reply