Abstract
A multi-category approach to the study of inequality has been the focus of academic research for some time. More recently, this has shifted towards an intersectional approach with attempts to understand how these inequalities intersect from a relational, rather than an additive, perspective, an approach that poses both theoretical and methodological challenges for researchers. Globalization and Inequalities makes a timely and welcome contribution to this debate. Drawing upon complexity theory alongside ‘classic’ social theory, Walby takes a new, integrative approach to an age-old problem of how to theorize multiple complex inequalities on a global scale, that does not prioritize but includes class.
This ground-breaking book focuses upon globalized social inequalities, their changing nature and how they intersect within institutional domains. It engages with a rich and complex set of theoretical perspectives, debating and questioning what we mean by the terms ‘modernity’ and ‘progress’ and, given that inequalities persist, whether we are yet ‘fully modern’. The project is theoretically ambitious, drawing upon a broad range of sociological theory but also utilizing empirical data to measure progress in terms of, but not limited to, economic development, equality, human rights and human development, and how these encompass complex multiple inequalities.
Key to the analysis of complex multiple inequalities lie new ways to utilize the concept of ‘social system’. Walby argues that taking such an approach presents a challenge to classic social theory where the old concept of social system cannot account for more than one major axis of inequality in each institutional domain, although use of the term ‘system’ remains central to the analysis. Complex multiple inequalities include, but are not limited to, gender, ethnicity, racialization, nation, religion, able-bodiedness, sexual orientation, generation and linguistic community. It is complexity theory and its inter-relating concepts to which Walby turns.
Analytically distinguishing each inequality as a separate system, or regime, rather than parts of the same system, Walby argues that each regime of inequality is ontologically distinct from the others while, at the same time, they co-exist and overlap within the same domains. Avoiding the base/superstructure model, Walby identifies the four domains in which social relations are played out: economies (including free wage labour and domestic labour); the polity (states, the EU, organized religions, nations); civil society (the institutional domain in which many competing projects develop); and violence (the deployment and regulation of violence as a social process). These also constitute separate systems in which each inequality may co-exist. For example, economic inequality is considered not just in terms of free wage labour but also domestic labour and state welfare, to take account of the transformation of the gender regime. Each social inequality is defined as a ‘system’ (or regime) that is not reducible to the others, but rather co-exists within the institutional domains (or systems). This avoids the trap of reductionism because each system can take all other systems as its environment – they may overlap but do not saturate one another. These domains are considered in relation to modernity, global processes, neo-liberalism and social democracy, path dependency, globalization and waves, thus relating some of the ‘new’ language of complexity theory to some of the ‘old’ language of social theory.
This book offers a theoretical solution to the age-old problem of how to understand complex multiple inequalities. By treating the regimes of inequality and domains as separate but co-existing, it is possible to identify both the presence and absence of inequalities, temporally and spatially, without taking an ‘additive’ approach or prioritizing one inequality over another. This is achievable because each inequality regime does not saturate its environment – multiple inequalities can be identified within the same domain.
Social inequalities, outlined at the beginning of the book, are analytically distinct but at the same time overlap within the four domains. While much space in the book is devoted to the ways complex multiple inequalities embed themselves within domains, not all of these inequalities are explored in the same depth. This results in three cross-cutting categories dominating the discussion because the analysis is limited to the systems of ethnicity, gender and class, with passing reference made to disability and sexual orientation and no analysis on the basis of age. While this may in itself indicate the sheer complexity of such a project based upon the inter-relation of a large number of social categories, the end result is the prioritization of the intersection of class, gender and ethnicity over other categories. Extending the analysis beyond these three over-arching categories and demonstrating how these are linked would have taken the analysis beyond what other researchers have achieved to date.
Notwithstanding this point, this book is complex, stimulating and insightful and should be read by any scholar who is interested in multiple inequalities on a global scale. It can, at times, seem a little overwhelming, but this is a reflection of its complexity. The book makes an enormous contribution not only to the intersectionality debate, but also encourages the reader to question whether we are yet ‘fully modern’ and what counts as ‘progress’. As Walby argues, we are not yet modern when most states have not yet fully criminalized and delegitimized violence against women and minorities.
This book offers a macro and micro theoretical analysis of multiple inequalities that span international borders. Condensing such an analysis to a more qualitative approach will present challenges for researchers. This is acknowledged by Walby, who states: ‘the complexity approach provides a conceptual vocabulary that better enables the analysis of the intersection of multiple regimes of inequality. It does not a priori make claims as to the nature of this intersection. Instead, it leaves open the question as to the nature of the intersection for empirical enquiry’ (p. 273). This leaves the door open to researchers to operationalize the theoretical framework proposed by Walby, and the proof of the theoretical pudding will be in the eating.