Beyond the established categories: An alternative approach to feminist thought starting from debates about women and the rise of the market economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist thought is often articulated as a series of categories such as liberal feminism, socialist feminism, Marxist feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, etc. These categories have aided the development of feminist thought, but their prevalence limits discussion to predictable parameters. Meanwhile, feminists often have notably divergent responses to the rise of the market economy. In particular, we differ about the liberating possibilities of participating in a capitalist market economy. Some feminists emphasise that the market economy provides an opportunity for women to free themselves from gender restrictions expressed in family and kinship traditions. But many other feminists are sceptical, from varying perspectives, that participation in the capitalist market results in freedom for women (or in other benefits to women, men or the world). This article draws on work by Linda Nicholson and Karl Polanyi to show that thinking through the historically changing relations between market, kinship, family and politics provides a different way of conceptualising feminist thought. Unlike the older alternative, this new approach has the advantage that it is grounded directly in thinking about women’s experiences around the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".