Research undertaken in the Oaxacan (Mexican) indigenous community of Santa Cruz indicates that gender differences in technology acquisition derive in part from locally unique gendered patterns of labor participation. Previous studies have identified constraints on women's adoption of technology which stem from women's relative resource poverty and mode of insertion into the labor process. In the present comparative gender analysis labor-process theory is extended to argue that Santa Cruz men's engagement with communal labor (from which women are spatially and socially excluded) provides men with: (1) gender-specific sociocultural tools transferable to value-added-commodity production, and (2) a social space for discourse on labor-organization technology. Santa Cruz women's (socially constructed) involvement with household production, by contrast, isolates women, fragmenting the social space necessary for reworking labor-organization technologies. Women, however, contest men's advantages: the social organization of production which excludes women also empowers. Over the eight-year course of a men's cooperative production project, women creatively and successfully utilized their control over key steps in the household labor process to exact concessions collectively from men and to create a separate space for a women's production co-op. Nevertheless, women continued to confront workplace-organizational problems as a result of their village-structured experience. Initiatives designed to promote women's technology acquisition must not depend on the assumption of workplace-organizational tools in either men or women, but must identify and address gender disparities in workplace-organizational technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgarwalB, 1985, “Women and technological change in agriculture: The Asian and African experience”, in Technology and Rural Women Ed. AhmedI (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts) pp 67–114
2.
AgarwalB, 1991, “Agricultural mechanisation and labour use: A Disaggregated approach”, in Women, Development and Survival in the Third World Ed. AfsharH (Longman, Harlow, Essex) pp 174–187
3.
AhmedI, 1985, “Introduction”, in Technology and Rural Women Ed. AhmedI (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts) pp 1–14
4.
AndersenC, 1992, “Practical guidelines”, in Women and Development: A Practical Guide Ed. OstergaardL (Routledge, New York) pp 165–197
5.
ArizpeLBoteyC, 1987, “Mexican agricultural development policy and its impact on rural women”, in Rural Women and State Policy: Feminist Perspectives on Latin American Agricultural Development Eds DeereC DLeónM (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 67–83
6.
BeneríaL, 1992, “The Mexican debt crisis: Restructuring the economy and the household”, in Unequal Burden: Economic Crises, Persistent Poverty, and Womens Work Eds BeneríaLFeldmanS (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 83–104
7.
BernsteinH, 1982, “Notes on capital and peasantry”, in Rural Development Ed HarrisJ (Hutchinson Education, London) pp 160–177
8.
BhaduriA, 1985, “Technological change and rural women: A Conceptual analysis”, in Technology and Rural Women Ed. AhmedI (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts) pp 15–64
9.
BowlesS, 1985, “The production process in a competitive economy: Walrasian, neo-Hobbesian, and Marxian models”American Economic Review7516–36
CainMKhanamS RNaharS, 1979, “Class, patriarchy, and women's work in Bangladesh”Population and Development Review5405–438
12.
CancianF, 1992The Decline of Community in Zinacantán (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
13.
CarlsteinT, 1982Time Resources, Society and Ecology: Volume 1 Pre-industrial Societies (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
14.
CarneyJ, 1992, “Peasant women and economic transformation in the Gambia”Development and Change2367–90
15.
CarneyJWattsM, 1990, “Manufacturing dissent: Work, gender and the politics of meaning in a peasant society”Africa60208–241
16.
CarneyJWattsM, 1991, “Disciplining women? Rice, mechanization, and the evolution of Mandinka gender relations in Senegambia”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society16651–681
17.
ChantS, 1994, “Women, work, and household survival strategies in Mexico, 1982–1992: Past trends, current tendencies, and future research”Bulletin of Latin American Research13203–233
18.
DeereC D, 1982, “The division of labor by sex in agriculture: A Peruvian case study”Economic Development and Cultural Change30795–812
19.
DeereC Dde JanvryA, 1979, “A conceptual framework for the empirical analysis of peasants”American Journal of Agricultural Economics61601–611
20.
FoucaultM, 1979Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Vintage Books, New York)
21.
FoxJ, 1992The Politics of Food in Mexico (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
22.
GatesM, 1996, “The debt crisis and economic restructuring: Prospects for Mexican agriculture”, in Neo-liberalism Revisited: Economic Restructuring and Mexico's Political Future Ed, OteroG (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 43–62
23.
Gonzalez de la RochaM, 1994The Resources of Poverty: Women and Survival in a Mexican City (Blackwell, Oxford)
24.
GoodmanDRedcliftM, 1991Refashioning Nature (Routledge, New York)
25.
GregoryD, 1982Regional Transformation and Industrial Revolution: A Geography of the Yorkshire Woolen Industry (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
26.
GuyerJ, 1988, “Dynamic approaches to domestic budgeting: Cases and methods from Africa”, in A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World Eds DwyerDBruceJ (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) pp 155–172
27.
GwaltneyJ, 1970The Thrice Shy: Cultural Accommodation to Blindness and Other Disasters in a Mexican Community (Columbia University Press, New York)
28.
HägerstrandT, 1974, “On socio-technical ecology and the study of innovations”Ethnologia Europea817–34
29.
HartG, 1991, “Engendering everyday resistance: Gender, patronage and production politics in rural Malaysia”. Journal of Peasant Studies19(1) 93–121
30.
MartG, 1992, “Household production reconsidered: Gender, labor conflict, and technological change in Malaysia's Muda region”World Development20809–823
31.
HarveyD, 1982The Limits to Capital (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
32.
HarveyN, 1996, “Rural reforms and the Zapatista rebellion, 1988–1995”, in Neo-Liberalism Revisited: Economic Restructuring and Mexico's Political Future Ed. OteroG (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 187–208
33.
Hays-MitchellM, 1993, “The lies that bind. Informal and formal sector linkages in streetvending: The case of Peru's amulantes”Environment and Planning A231085–1102
34.
HernándezL, 1991, “Nadando con los Tiburones: La Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones Cafetaleras”, in Cafetaleros: la Construcción de la Autonomía Eds CelisFCoboRGarciaASierraP LMoguelJOlveraA JParéLParedesL PArceF PFjeaGHernandezL; Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones Cafetaleras, Mexico, pp 17–48
35.
JonesC, 1986, “Intra-household bargaining in response to the introduction of new crops: A Case study from North Cameroon”, in Understanding Africa's Rural Households and Farming Systems Ed. MoockJ (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 105–123
36.
LawsonV AKlakT, 1990, “Conceptual linkages in the study of production and reproduction in Latin American cities”Economic Geography66310–327
37.
MarxK, 1906Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Charles Kerr, New York)
38.
MarxK, 1963The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (International Publishers, New York)
39.
MiguelA, 1997, “El Neoliberalismo en Oaxaca, Mexico”, presented to the Latin American Studies Association Conference, 19 April; copy available from the author, Instituto Technologico de Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico
40.
MillerB, 1992, “Collective action and rational choice: Place, community, and the limits to individual self-interest”Economic Geography6822–42
41.
MiraftabF, 1996, “Space, gender and work: Home-based workers in Mexico”, in Homeworkers in Global Perspective Eds BorisEPrügE (Routledge, New York) pp 63–80
42.
MorvaridiB, 1992, “Gender relations in agriculture: Women in Turkey”Economic Development and Cultural Change40567–586
43.
MoserC, 1993Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice, and Training (Routledge, New York)
44.
ParéL, 1990, ‘The challenges of rural democratisation in Mexico”Journal of Development Studies26(4) 1–18
45.
ParéL, 1991, “Adelgazamiento del INMECAFE o de los Pequeños Productores de Café?”, in Cafetaleros: la Construcción de la Autonomía Eds CelisFCoboRGarciaASierraP LMoguelJOlveraA JParéLParedesL PArceF PFjeaGHernandezL (Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones Cafetaleras, Mexico)
46.
PredA, 1990, “In other wor(l)ds: Fragmented and integrated observations on gendered languages, gendered spaces and local transformation”Antipode2233–52
47.
PringleR, 1989Secretaries Talk: Sexuality, Power and Work (Verso, London)
48.
PrüglE, 1996, “Home-based producers in development discourse”, in Homeworkers in Global Perspective Eds BorisEPrüglE (Routledge, New York) pp 39–59
49.
RichardsP, 1989Indigenous Knowledge Systems for Agriculture and Rural Development: The CIKARD Inaugural LecturesTechnology and Social Change Program, Iowa State University, Ames IA
50.
RoldánM, 1987a, “Class, gender and asymmetrical exchanges within households”, in The Crossroads of Class and Gender: Industrial Homework, Subcontracting and Household Dynamics in Mexico City Eds BeneríaLRoldánM (Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL) pp 109–136
51.
RoldánM, 1987b, “The marriage contract: Renegotiation and consciousness”, in The Crossroads of Class and Gender: Industrial Homework, Subcontracting and Household Dynamics in Mexico City Eds BeneríaLRoldánM (Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL) pp 137–163
52.
SaxenianA, 1994Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
53.
SayerAWalkerR, 1992The New Social Economy: Reworking the Division of Labor (Blackwell, Oxford)
54.
SchroederR, 1993, “Shady practice: Gender and the political ecology of resource stabilization in Gambian garden orchards”Economic Geography69349–365
55.
SenA, 1990a, “More than 100 million women are missing”New York Review of Books37 20 December, pages 61–66
56.
SenA, 1990b, “Gender and cooperative conflicts”, in Persistent Inequalities: Women in World Development Ed. TinkerI (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 123–149
57.
StephenL, 1993, “Weaving in the fast lane: Class, ethnicity, and gender in Zapotec craft commercialization”, in Crafts in the World Market Ed. NashJ (SUNY Press, Albany, NY) pp 25–57
58.
van der WalH, 1996, “Patrón de uso de las tierras y sustentabilidad en la agricultura de roza, tumba y quema en las comunidades chinantecas”; copy from hans.vanderwal@users.eco.wau.nl
59.
Ventura-DiasV, 1985, “Modernization, production organisation and rural women in Kenya”, in Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues Ed. AhmedI (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts) pp 157–210
60.
WattsM, 1992, “Living under contract: Work, production politics, and the manufacture of discontent in a peasant society”, in Reworking Modernity: Capitalisms and Symbolic Discontent Eds PredA (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 65–105
61.
WhiteheadA, 1981, “ ‘I'm hungry, mum’: The politics of domestic budgeting”, in Of Marriage and the Market Eds WolkowitzCMcCullaghRYoungK (CSE Books, London) pp 88–111
62.
WhiteheadA, 1985, “Effects of technology change on rural women: A Review of analysis and concepts”, in Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues Ed. AhmedI (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts) pp 27–66
63.
WhiteheadABloomH, 1992, “Agriculture”, in Gender and Development: A Practical Guide Ed. OstergaardL (Routledge, London) pp 41–56
64.
WillisK, 1993, “Women's work and social network use in Oaxaca City, Mexico”Bulletin of Latin American Research1265–82
65.
WinterM, 1991, “Interhousehold exchange of goods and services in the city of Oaxaca”Urban Anthropology2067–85
66.
WolfD, 1992Factory Daughters (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
67.
YoungK, 1978, “Modes of appropriation and the sexual division of labour: A Case study from Oaxaca, Mexico”, in Feminism and Materialism Eds KuhnAWolpeA (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) pp 124–154
68.
ZimmererK, 1993, “Soil erosion and social (dis)courses in Cochabamba, Bolivia: Perceiving the nature of environmental degradation”Economic Geography69312–327
