文：輕津 (Scroll down for English)
前文主要論及了香港殖民初期的原居民社會中的性別秩序，本文則從社會再生產理論（social reproduction theory）探討晚期的跨境婚姻現象。使用再生產理論是為異性戀霸權、性別分工、父權制等社會文化現象提供一個歷史性解釋——這些現象如何從漫長的社會演變過程中形成，又經歷了何種的「範式轉移」？人類學家克勞德·梅亞蘇（Claude Meillassoux）「從再生產型到生產型的社會」的假說認為：文明社會從自給自足的小農社會發展至撕毀一切「田園詩般」關係的資本社會，生產的場域也從農地變成了工廠，社會控制的手法亦是如是，這種過程一共經歷了數種的累積與變化：(1) 原始農業社會中，生產活動被納進代際再生產中，形成了文化上的親屬關係（kinship）；(2)在農業剩餘 (surplus) 的基礎上發展起來的奴隸制與封建制，生產活動被納入社會分層(Social stratification) （有時這也是剝削性的階級關係）的再生產中；(3)工業化後人的生產勞動成為了商品，從往日人際支配關係中剝離出來，透過對自身的物化來投身於資本的再生產（即資本累積）之中。在這過程中，與其說社會不再強制要求勞動個體投入再生產（包括生育、家務勞動、教育、護理等）的輪迴，倒不如說以往社會形式的再生產的邏輯被資本主義下的市場邏輯凌駕：一部份被轉化為營利產業，一部份被排除於生產過程外，被國家機器接管（社會福利）。然而，在資本主義下，勞動力再生產不可能被完全私有化或國有化，這是因為勞動力不是一個獨立生產者（並不具備自給自足的能力），他們的存在是矛盾的： (1)他們一方面作為商品生產過程中的重要要素——他們是生產主體，同時 (2)他們也是實現商品交換價值的消費主體。在剩餘價值最大化的前提下，前者的成本（工資）務求壓得最低，後者的價值（商品價格）務求拉得最高，形成了生產與再生產場域的分離與衝突，並由家庭作為承載這種予盾的主要場域。透過「解決」這些矛盾，資本方得以「以服務『產品』提供者的」身份繼續榨取剩餘價值，而國家作為社會福利政策的推行者和收取稅的權威機器則負責監管剩餘價值生產的位置確保社會關係網不致碎裂。
回到文章主題本身，揀選跨境婚姻作為殖民晚期性別史的一部份來分析，有兩重意義：一是跨境婚姻作為七十年代末期出現的社會現象具有其歷史性，包括中國改革開放與香港金融化下兩種性別制度的相遇，另外則是香港社會對移民婦女的態度轉變，「新移民」婦女被視為社會福利與勞動力市場的競爭者，「舊移民」婦女則是香港工業化神話中勤勞的「工廠妹」；二是從地域與時間層面來看，香港作為一個移民城市，其文化包含著流散社群的身份居間性（in-betweenness）多於本土性；而這種居間性乃源於遷移與定居的過程中，對現代性的想象落差與不斷的追求。本文將探討這群婦女在移民過程中，不同的生產體制（官僚社會主義—官僚資本主義—國家資本主義—金融資本主義）試圖外化（externalize）再生產成本的情況之下所遭受的壓迫與作出的選擇；這一過程也反映出香港金融化時期遲婚、生育率下降、更多女性參與勞動力（尤其是中層工種與服務業的零散工種）的狀況下，再生產（尤其是低技術勞動力）的成本，被遮蔽、貶抑及污名，並主要由這群新移民婦女來負擔。
農村父權體制下的性別與勞動
七十年代末中國經濟市場化、香港金融化與跨境婚姻數字攀升並非單純的歷史偶然，如蔡玉萍和張家樂指出：「中國的經濟改革，尤其是在珠江三角洲地區，最初高度依賴來自香港的金融資本，和派遣到南方工廠的經理、監事、和技術人員等的人力資本。 香港和中國之間的經濟融合也導致跨境卡車司機數量迅速增加， 這些香港男性工人在工作和各種娛樂場所結識到中國女性，因為大量女性從中國農村遷移去珠江三角洲，到工廠和服務業打工」（2528）。這種「結識」不單帶出了資本與男性同時「北進」湧入「第三世界國家」的微妙現象，從女性與從屬者的角度來看，這背後更連結著計劃經濟與性別平等的社會主義實踐的失敗。中共 1978 年前的土地與經濟政策「根除了地主階級的父權制，但結果卻將『更民主』的父權制家庭拱讓給男性」(Grove and Kohama, 338)。即使在農村集體化時期，小農家庭基礎和性別分工也因「由家庭輔助勞動力來承擔低報酬勞動投入」（黃宗智，82）而得以保留下來。集體化時期試圖提高兩性的生產參與以達至性別平等的後果是，農業在國家集中提高工業生產力的情況下變成「半勞力」的任務，而出現農業女性化的情況，這背後的原因也包括中共將再生產勞動社會化的嘗試並沒有觸及性別分工、補償家務勞動的問題，女性仍被困於性別差異的無形假設之中，如賀蕭（Gail Hershatter）指出：「婦女和男子都知道婦女在集體勞動中的參與度沒有男人的高，這並不是因為婦女體弱，而是因為她們的時間被公共勞動和家庭勞動所分割。」（18）。然而，在生產工具部份私有制的小農家庭中，由於家庭為生產與再生產活動的主要單位，再生產的活動亦並未主要以「消費」的方式進行，剩餘價值生產（農務）與再生產勞動因此對家庭作出的貢獻並沒有如資本主義般，明確分為「有酬（即具生產力/男性）僱佣勞動」與「無酬（即不具生產力/女性）家務勞動」，這種情況也近似於早期人類社會中，「家內(domestic)或家庭(family)生產就是公共生產」(Vogel, 170)。這些家庭的僱佣勞動與家務勞動的分界，隨著改革開放而來變得更加涇渭分明，如潘毅所提出的農民工「未完成的無產階級化」所意味著的：「整個打工階層獲得的工資，比他們打工所在地的平均社會再生產成本要低很多。總之他們賺取的工資，不是讓他們用來在工業城市生活的，而是為返鄉做好準備的。」（43），在這種城鄉的二元制度下，跨境婚姻，對於從農村「釋放」出來的女性農民工而言，不單代表著地域之間的移動，也表示著階級之內，甚至跨階級的向上流動。
「農民」、「工人」與「主婦」之間的半勞動力
中國的戶籍制度是官僚社會主義下為了管制工人階級的增長、推動農業集體化而制定的人口政策，而結果是，城市工業化的生產力不足以惠及中國龐大的農村人口，帶動農業機械化，並進入社會主義自動化的階段。官僚的計劃經濟令農村家庭單位得以保留，而縱使在城市，婦女工人享有產假與托兒所，但女性仍被當作官僚指令下，可在生產與再生產領域之間調派的人口資源，如小濱正子指出，「1957年後保障所有女性工作崗位出現明顯困難後，轉而獎勵女性在家庭貢獻國家；1958年開始的『大躍進』時期，女性就業被強制性推行」(342)。直到改革開放，才導致公共生產領域與的私人再生產領域的二元分野逐漸形成。與此同時，中外合資工廠急需大量廉價勞動力，加上小農生產的農產品於全國市場上面對進口農產品競爭，農民收入微薄，在政策利好工業與而不利好農業發展的拉扯作用下下，未婚的農村女性紛紛湧向城市工廠，賺取更高的工資。這種人口流動有兩重意義：一、年輕農村女性從集體農村生產生活遷移到個人化的打工消費生活，從中亦顯示出一種消費現代性：「晚期現代性是由對時裝與風格的普遍性消費所定義的」(Tsang, Lowe, Wilkinson&Scambler,365)，而這種現代性又以亞洲發達經濟體，包括香港為代表；二、這也意味著女性透過向資本社會出賣勞動力（而非在家庭式生產中付出勞動力，繼而分享集體勞動成果），女性得到了一定經濟自主，而一定的經濟獨立程度使『打工妹』，即農民工女性能夠就跨境婚姻的選擇向農村父權家庭進行議價，重新分配、甚至脫離農村的再生產勞動。婚姻因而從以往農村的包辨婚姻（延續生產單位）變成了一種為女性帶來向上流動、從農村移往城市機會的選擇，而這種變化又是受各種歷史因素（戶籍制度、中國引入市場經濟解決計劃經濟僵化）所影響。
農民工女性的跨境婚姻的選擇亦深化了德國女性主義者瑪麗亞·米斯（Maria Mies）所提出的「主婦化」（housewifization）概念。米斯主張，西方在帝國主義時期業已展開的「主婦化」過程不單透過轉移再生產成本於女性身上而得以減低勞動力成本，還籍著塑造一個精明管理家庭消費的「賢妻」形象將女性馴化為不斷有新需求的消費者。而在後殖民時期，全球化帶來了另一種國際性別分工——第三世界國家女性工人生產廉價商品出口予西方國家主婦消費，然而，這種性別分工並非簡單地以生產者/消費者關係存在；米斯認為：「資本主義中的模範夫婦——「自由」的工薪階層或生產資料所有者及其依賴的家庭主婦——存在的物質基礎越是在第三世界國家被削弱，這一現實就越被這種『模範夫婦』的普遍形象的傳播所掩蓋。」（119）。這也是說，第三世界國家女性「並非生產其自身所需的，而是為他人的消費而生產」（120），但這種現實被「主婦化」的意識形態所掩飾，使女性的勞動得以「更加廉價」（比起作為「真正」生產者的男性），而跨境婚姻中的農民工女性對對消費現代性的追求使她們走向了「真正」主婦化的道路——成為香港工薪階層的妻子。然而，這種身份的轉變，從米斯的角度而言，其實是全球父權制下邊陲地區反向發達地區輸入女性勞動——此一可在再生產與生產領域間調配的「半勞動力」，以解決當地再生產危機與維持充份具「競爭力」（可剝削的）的勞動市場。
資本主義與父權制
「移民」從來並非一個中性的詞語，背後總是帶有政治經濟意義的。香港至開埠起經歷幾波難民潮，直至七十年代社會上冒現排外情緒，這種現象並非單純由於「大香港主義」或「本土意識興起」，而是戰後中國與香港開始形成的「分斷體制」（Division System）。「分斷體制」一詞原由韓國文藝評論家白樂晴提出，將南北韓的分裂狀態理解為兩地實質以相互依存（interdependency）的方式參與世界體系。放在中國—香港的關係上來看，中國於冷戰與文革期間以「長期利用，充份打算」的地下方式，壓抑香港左派與文革造反潮與後來的民主化運動的聯動，並將反殖目標無限期延宕，以換取外匯與國際貿易，支持一國社會主義累積。另一邊廂，香港在殖民主義的羽翼下，充份利用南逃的人力資本，開展屬於香港的工業化，躍過了原始累積，本地出口導向型市場與社會福利的建立，「公民權」（citizenship）的身份概念與邊境管制越趨強烈，勞動力再生產排除了人口高度流動的因素，而紮根於「本地」、有公民權的家庭。直至七十年代末——中國指令型經濟的僵化為免走向蘇聯瓦解的命運，而採取官僚主導的市場化，這個過程依賴香港資本的投資與國際市場連結；而香港踏上金融化之途後，面對中產的興起、遲婚、生育率下降、更多女性參與勞動力等可能帶來後備勞動力縮小、人力成本上升、社會福利增多等不利資本累積的問題，內地從農村「釋放」出來的女性勞動力透過跨境婚姻的移民，替代了輸入外勞的方案並（暫時）解決了上述的問題。
本地有關新移民婦女的研究少有採取再生產的角度。國際相關的研究，如有關南韓跨境/國婚姻的研究指出，此類婚姻大多數來自於城市工人階級，並可以被解讀為新自由主義之下，低收入工人面對福利減少與失業問題時的另一種策略——家庭成為社會安全網，來自低社經地位的女性成為家庭再生產主要勞動力與「補貼」收入（尤其當男性失業時）的後備勞動力（Lee,17 ）。而根據香港社區組織協會的資料，有七成的新移民做基層工作，較多任職於批發、零售、社區和個人服務業和建造業等，並持續填補香港一直以來的（尤其從事底層低技術工種）勞工不足。這種現象，大多數者歸咎於新移民婦女的低學歷與農村背景，而忽略了跨境婚姻的政治經濟——跨境婚姻並非如表面上所說的促進兩地融合，而是為了輸入免費的再生產勞動力與廉價的生產勞動力。換言之，女性是一種特殊的勞動力資源，用以維持可供剝削的階級的（即使是勉強度日）延續，正如黃洪與方旻煐指出，「在低收入家庭中，女性通常需承擔管理財務的責任。在食物、衣服及其他資源不足的情況下，女性往往犧牲自己的利益，確保其他家庭成員的健康及福利......照顧子女的責任使女性的工作時間受限制，部份僱主利用女性的家庭作籍口，將工作零散化。工作時間愈少，女性獲得的薪金就愈少。」（66）——這種被稱為女性隱性貧窮的現象，反映的除了是一個社會問題外，亦是問題的成因本身——女性在鍥而不捨地想要解決消費不足、人力成本上升與利潤下降問題的資本主義社會下，被納入接近貧窮線的後備勞動力，維持勞動力市場充份的競爭力，以壓止工資上升趨勢，同時亦是利用父權制下的性別分工，要求女性為家庭再生產成本開支墊底，並以此削弱女性的勞動價值。
超越父權制
「雙重勞動」觀點認為是因為父權制的性別分工導致女性負上了雙重勞動，解決方法是向女性提供生育方面的社會援助，與要求男性分擔家務勞動，然而，此觀點忽略的是：在資本主義框架內，僱佣勞動與再生產勞動之間必然存在張力，甚至衝突，如美國社會學家莉絲·沃格爾（Lise Vogel）寫道：「如果要進行資本主義生產，就必須有勞動力，要得到勞動力，就必須進行家務勞動。另一方面，家務勞動阻礙了資本主義對利潤的追求，因為它也限制了獲得勞動的可能性……長遠來看，資本階級企圖使勞動力再生產穩定在低耗費水平上和最低度的的家務勞動力之內」(Vogel, 155)，資本家採取不同的做法以達到這個目的，包括：要求國家承擔部份再生產領域的基礎建設、私有化再生產領域勞動（如護老院、家庭佣工）、取消家庭工資（family wage）[1]、以散工形式僱用已生育的婦女、鼓勵家庭使用信用卡消費和按揭、污名化社會福利等。由此可見，性別剝削與經濟剝削為互相交織的現象，從再生產型到生產型的社會，農村經濟遭遇資本主義後，生產工具在一定程度上社會化，從父權制家庭落到大規模僱用勞動力的企業主手上，然而改變的不過是生產與再生產領域的分裂，一方面女性進入生產領域獲得自主性，但由於再生產領域無法完全被社會化，資本主義社會不想負擔不能直接產生剩餘價值的再生產勞動成本——這對社會上一小批人的財富來說是不利的。要超越當今社會的父權制，就必須超域其所寄生的資本主義，這意味著生產與再生產領域的再度結合——並非是回到農村父權制家庭，而是將這兩個領域社會化，眾人參與的剩餘勞動歸社會財富所有，而社會財富則按民主的計劃支持再生產領域，任何性別、種族、社群的人共同參與社會生產與再生產，「各取所需，各盡所能」——這是目前資本主義社會下能得出最為極致的想像，剩下的問題就只有具體實踐。
While the previous article mainly discussed the gender hierarchy in indigenous Hong Kong society during the colonial period, this article explores the phenomenon of cross-border marriage in the later period through the lens of social reproduction theory. This theory provides a historical explanation for social and cultural phenomena such as heterosexual dominance, gender division of labor, and patriarchy - how these phenomena have evolved through a long process of social change and undergone what kind of "paradigm shift"? Anthropologist Claude Meillassoux's hypothesis "From Reproduction Type to Production Type Society" holds that civilized societies have developed from self-sufficient small agricultural societies to capitalist societies that destroy all "pastoral" relationships. The field of production has also shifted from farmland to factories, as has the means of social control. This process has undergone several accumulations and changes:
- In primitive agricultural societies, production activities were integrated into intergenerational reproduction, forming cultural kinship relationships.
- In the slave and feudal systems that developed on the basis of surplus agriculture, production activities were integrated into the reproduction of social stratification (sometimes also exploitative class relationships).
- After industrialization, human labor became a commodity stripped from the interpersonal domination of the past and engaged in the reproduction of capital (i.e. capital accumulation) through objectification.
In this process, rather than saying that society no longer forces labor individuals to participate in reproduction (including childbirth, housework, education, nursing, etc.), it is more accurate to say that the logic of past forms of reproduction has been superseded by market logic under capitalism: a portion is transformed into a profitable industry, while another portion is excluded from the production process and taken over by the state apparatus (social welfare). However, under capitalism, the reproduction of labor cannot be completely privatized or nationalized because labor is not an independent producer (it does not have self-sufficient capabilities). Their existence is contradictory: they are an important element in the production process as commodities - they are the subject of production, while they are also the subject of consumption that realizes the exchange value of commodities. Under the premise of maximizing surplus value, the cost of the former (wages) is kept as low as possible, while the value of the latter (commodity price) is sought to be as high as possible, resulting in the separation and conflict between the fields of production and reproduction, and the family becomes the main arena for carrying this contradiction. By "resolving" these contradictions, capital can continue to extract surplus value by serving "product" providers, while the state, as the promoter of social welfare policies and the authority machine for collecting taxes, is responsible for regulating the location of surplus value production to ensure that the social relationship network does not disintegrate.
Returning to the topic of the article itself, selecting cross-border marriage as a part of the gender history of the late colonial period for analysis has two meanings: first, as a social phenomenon that emerged in the late 1970s, cross-border marriage has its own historical significance, including the encounter between two gender systems under China's reform and opening up and Hong Kong's financialization, as well as the change in Hong Kong's attitude towards immigrant women, with "new immigrant" women seen as competitors in the social welfare and labor markets, while "old immigrant" women are seen as diligent "factory girls" in the myth of Hong Kong's industrialization. Second, from the perspective of geographical and temporal layers, Hong Kong, as an immigrant city, has a cultural identity that is more in-betweenness than rootedness, which originates from the gap in imagination of modernity and the pursuit of it in the process of migration and settlement. This article will explore the oppression and choices these women face in the process of migration under different production systems (bureaucratic socialism-bureaucratic capitalism-state capitalism-financial capitalism) as they attempt to externalize the costs of reproduction. This process also reflects the situation in Hong Kong during the period of financialization, where delayed marriage, declining birth rates, and more women participating in the labor force (especially middle-level and service industry precarious workers) have led to the cost of reproduction (especially low-skilled labor) being obscured, denigrated, and stigmatized, and mainly borne by these new immigrant women.
Gender and Labor under the Patriarchal System in Rural Areas
The rise of China's market economy, Hong Kong's financialization, and cross-border marriages in the late 1970s were not mere coincidences. According to Choi Yuk Ping and Zhang Jiale, "China's economic reform, especially in the Pearl River Delta region, initially relied heavily on financial capital from Hong Kong and human capital in the form of managers, directors, and technicians sent to southern factories. The economic integration between Hong Kong and China also led to a rapid increase in the number of cross-border truck drivers. These Hong Kong male workers met Chinese women at work and various entertainment venues because a large number of women migrated from rural China to the Pearl River Delta to work in factories and services" (2528). This "meeting" not only brought about the subtle phenomenon of capital and men simultaneously "moving northward" into "third world countries," but also revealed the failure of socialist practice in planned economy and gender equality from the perspective of women and subordinates.
The land and economic policies before 1978 by the Communist Party of China (CPC) "eliminated the patriarchal system of the landlord class, but the result was to hand over the 'more democratic' patriarchal family to men" (Grove and Kohama, 338). Even during the period of rural collectivization, the foundation of small peasant households and gender division of labor was preserved because "family support labor is used to undertake low-paid labor input" (Huang Zongzhi, 82). The attempt during the collectivization period to increase the participation of both sexes in production to achieve gender equality resulted in agriculture becoming a "semi-laborious" task under the condition of national concentration on industrial productivity, and the feminization of agriculture emerged.
The reasons behind this include the CPC's attempt to socialize reproductive labor, which did not touch on the issue of gender division of labor and compensation for housework. Women are still trapped in the invisible assumptions of gender differences, as Gail Hershatter pointed out: "Both men and women know that women's participation in collective labor is not as high as that of men. This is not because women are weaker, but because their time is divided between public labor and household labor" (18).
However, in small peasant households with partly private ownership of production tools, the family is the main unit for production and reproduction activities, and reproductive activities are not primarily carried out in the form of "consumption." Therefore, the contribution of surplus value production (agriculture) and reproductive labor to the family is not clearly divided into "paid (productive/male) hired labor" and "unpaid (unproductive/female) housework," which is similar to "domestic or family production is public production" in early human societies (Vogel, 170). The boundary between hired labor and housework in these households has become more distinct with the reform and opening up, as Pan Yi's "unfinished proletarianization of migrant workers" implies: "The wages earned by the entire working class are much lower than the average social reproduction cost in the place where they work. In short, the wages they earn are not for their life in industrial cities, but for preparing to return to their hometowns" (43).
Under this urban-rural binary system, cross-border marriage represents not only the movement between regions but also upward mobility within and even across classes for female migrant workers "released" from rural areas.
The Half-Labor Force between "Peasants," "Workers," and "Housewives"
China's household registration system is a population policy developed under bureaucratic socialism to control the growth of the working class and promote agricultural collectivization. However, the productivity of urban industrialization was not sufficient to benefit China's huge rural population, driving agricultural mechanization and entering the socialist automation stage.
The bureaucratic planned economy allowed rural family units to be preserved. Although women workers in the city have maternity leave and childcare facilities, they are still regarded as a population resource that can be dispatched between production and reproduction areas under bureaucratic directives. As Yoshiko Shimizu points out, "after 1957, when it became difficult to ensure that all female jobs were guaranteed, women were rewarded for contributing to the country in their families. During the 'Great Leap Forward' that began in 1958, women's employment was compulsory." (342)
It was not until the reform and opening up that the dichotomy between public production and private reproduction gradually emerged. At the same time, Sino-foreign joint ventures urgently needed a large number of cheap labor. With the competition of imported agricultural products in the national market, peasant income was meager. Unmarried rural women flocked to urban factories to earn higher wages. This population mobility has two meanings. First, young rural women moved from collective rural production and life to individualized work and consumption life, which also shows a kind of consumption modernity: "Late modernity is defined by the universality of consumption of fashion and style" (Tsang, Lowe, Wilkinson & Scambler, 365). This modernity is represented by developed Asian economies, including Hong Kong. Second, this also means that women, through selling labor to capital society (rather than paying labor in family production and then sharing collective labor results), gained certain economic independence. A certain degree of economic independence enabled "working sisters," that is, peasant female workers, to negotiate with patriarchal rural families through cross-border marriage, redistribute, and even detach from reproductive labor in rural areas.
As a result, marriage has changed from the past arranged marriage in rural areas (continuing the production unit) to a choice that brings upward mobility and moves from rural areas to urban areas for women. This change is also affected by various historical factors (household registration system, introduction of market economy to solve the rigidity of planned economy in China).
The choice of cross-border marriage by female peasant workers deepens the concept of "housewifization" proposed by German feminist Maria Mies. Mies argues that the West's "housewifization" process, which started during the imperialist period, not only reduces labor costs by transferring reproductive costs to women but also domesticates women into consumers who constantly have new demands by shaping a "virtuous wife" image of managing household consumption wisely.
In the post-colonial period, globalization has brought about another international gender division of labor. Women workers in third world countries produce cheap goods for export to Western housewives for consumption. However, Mies believes that this gender division of labor is not simply a producer/consumer relationship. She argues that "the material basis for the ideal couple in capitalism - 'free' wage earners or production material owners and their dependent housewives - is weakened in third world countries, and this reality is covered up by the widespread image of this 'ideal couple'" (119). This means that women in third world countries "do not produce for their own needs, but for the consumption of others" (120), and this reality is concealed by the ideology of "housewifization", which allows women's labor to be undervalued and "cheaper" than men's labor.
The pursuit of modern consumption by female peasant workers in cross-border marriages leads them to the path of "real" housewifization - becoming the wives of Hong Kong's salaried class. However, from Mies's perspective, this change of identity is actually the import of female labor from the peripheral areas of the global patriarchal system to the reverse developed areas. This "half-labor force" can be allocated between reproductive and productive fields to solve local reproductive crises and maintain a "competitive" (exploitable) labor market.
Capitalism and Patriarchy
"Immigration" is not a neutral term and always carries political and economic implications. Since its establishment, Hong Kong has experienced several waves of refugees. In the 1970s, xenophobia emerged in Hong Kong society. This was not solely due to "Hong Kong nationalism" or the rise of "localism," but rather the result of the "division system" formed between China and Hong Kong after World War II. The term "division system" was originally proposed by South Korean literary critic Baik Lek-heng, who understood the divided state of North and South Korea as a way for the two regions to participate in the world system interdependently.
In the context of China-Hong Kong relations, China suppressed the left-wing and Cultural Revolution movements in Hong Kong, as well as the later democratization movement, through underground means during the Cold War and Cultural Revolution periods. It postponed its anti-colonial goals indefinitely to obtain foreign exchange and support one-country socialism accumulation. On the other hand, Hong Kong made full use of human capital from migration and developed its own industrialization under colonialism. This allowed it to bypass the process of primitive accumulation and establish a domestic export-oriented market and social welfare, while strengthening the concept of "citizenship" and border control. The reproduction of labor excluded the highly mobile population factor and rooted itself in families with citizenship.
Until the late 1970s, China adopted a market-oriented approach with bureaucratic leadership, relying on Hong Kong's capital investment and international market connections to avoid the fate of disintegration like the Soviet Union. After Hong Kong embarked on its path of financialization, it faced problems such as the rise of the middle class, delayed marriage, declining birth rates, and more women participating in the labor force. These factors could lead to a shrinking reserve labor force, rising labor costs, and increased social welfare, all of which were adverse to capital accumulation. The female labor force released from the countryside in mainland China through cross-border marriage migration temporarily solved these problems by replacing imported foreign labor.
There have been few studies on the reproductive experiences of new immigrant women in local contexts. International studies, such as those on cross-border/national marriages in South Korea, suggest that most of these marriages come from urban working-class families and can be seen as another strategy for low-income workers to cope with reduced welfare and unemployment under neoliberalism. The family becomes a social safety net, with women from low socio-economic backgrounds serving as the main labor force for family reproduction and as a "subsidized" income source (especially when men are unemployed) that can be called upon as a reserve labor force (Lee, 17).
According to data from the Hong Kong Community Organization Association, 70% of new immigrants work in grassroots positions, mostly in wholesale, retail, community and personal services, and construction, filling the shortage of low-skilled workers in Hong Kong's workforce. However, this phenomenon is mostly attributed to the low education and rural background of new immigrant women, while ignoring the political economy of cross-border marriage migration. Cross-border marriage migration does not simply promote the integration of two regions; rather, it imports free reproductive labor and cheap production labor to maintain the existence of an exploitable class, even if barely surviving.
As Huang Hong and Fang Minxuan pointed out, "In low-income families, women usually bear the responsibility of managing finances. In situations where food, clothing, and other resources are scarce, women often sacrifice their interests to ensure the health and welfare of other family members...The responsibility of caring for children limits women's working hours, and some employers use this as an excuse to fragment their work. The fewer the working hours, the less women earn." (66) This phenomenon of "female hidden poverty" reflects not only a social problem but also the cause of the problem itself. In capitalist society, where there is an unrelenting desire to solve the problems of insufficient consumption, rising labor costs, and declining profits, women are included as a reserve labor force close to the poverty line, maintaining the competitiveness of the labor market to prevent upward wage trends. At the same time, the gender division of labor under patriarchy requires women to bear the cost of family reproduction and weakens their labor value.
Transcending Patriarchy
The "double burden" perspective suggests that women bear a double burden due to the gender division of labor under patriarchy. The solution to this issue is to provide social assistance for reproductive work to women and demand that men share household labor. However, this perspective overlooks the tension and even conflict between waged labor and reproductive labor within the framework of capitalism.
As American sociologist Lise Vogel wrote, "Capitalist production requires labor power, and to obtain labor power, household labor must be performed. On the other hand, household labor impedes the pursuit of profit under capitalism because it also limits the possibility of obtaining labor... In the long run, the capitalist class attempts to stabilize labor reproduction at a low-cost level and within the minimum level of household labor" (Vogel, 155). To achieve this goal, capitalists adopt different strategies, including requiring the state to undertake basic infrastructure in the reproductive sector, privatizing reproductive labor (such as nursing homes and domestic workers), eliminating the family wage, employing women who have given birth as casual labor, encouraging credit card consumption and mortgages, and stigmatizing social welfare.
Therefore, gender exploitation and economic exploitation are interwoven phenomena. From a reproductive society to a productive society, after rural economies encountered capitalism, production tools were to some extent socialized, falling from patriarchal households to the hands of large-scale employers. However, what changed was only the division between the production and reproductive sectors. On the one hand, women entered the production sector and gained autonomy, but because the reproductive sector cannot be fully socialized, capitalist society does not want to bear the cost of reproductive labor that cannot directly generate surplus value - this is unfavorable to the wealth of a small group of people in society.
To transcend patriarchy in today's society, it is necessary to transcend the capitalism on which it depends. This means the reunification of the production and reproductive sectors, not returning to patriarchal households in rural areas, but socializing these two sectors. The surplus labor that everyone participates in belongs to the wealth of society, and social wealth supports the reproductive sector according to democratic planning. People of any gender, race, or community can participate in social production and reproduction, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - this is the most extreme imagination that can be reached in capitalist society, and the remaining problem is only concrete practice.
註解
[1] 家庭工資指的是計算僱員家庭成員在內，提供足以養活一個家庭的工資。
References
Hershatter, G. (2014). The gender of memory: Rural women and China’s collective past. University of California Press.
Lee, H. (2012). Political economy of cross-border marriage: Economic development and social reproduction in Korea. Feminist Economics, 18(2), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2012.688139
Meillassoux, C. (1972). From reproduction to production. Economy and Society, 1(1), 93-105.
Mies, M. (2014). Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: Women in the international division of labour. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kohama, M., 小浜正子, & Grove, L. (2021). Gender history in China.
Tsang, E. Y., Lowe, J., Wilkinson, J. S., & Scambler, G. (2018). Peasant sex workers in metropolitan China and the pivotal concept of money. Asian Journal of Social Science, 46(3), 359-380. doi:10.1163/15685314-04603007
Vogel, L. (2014). Marxism and the oppression of women: Toward a unitary theory. Historical Materialism.
留言
發佈留言