Reproducing the ‘national home’: gendering domopolitics

Abstract

Walters developed the concept of domopolitics to refer to the ways in which the securitisation of migration contributes to the construction of the UK as a ‘national home’. Domopolitical policies and discourses produce the UK as the ‘national home’ of ‘neoliberal citizens’; they thus serve as tools of neoliberal governmentality, disciplining both citizens and migrants into displaying qualities associated with neoliberal citizenship, especially economic productivity. However, the concept of ‘home’ has a particular genealogy within liberal discourses of citizenship. As Pateman contends, the political ‘public’ sphere of liberal citizenship is constructed in opposition to an apolitical ‘private’ sphere. The public sphere has been coded as the domain of men, while women have been relegated to the private ‘home’. Consequently, women have been deemed responsible for the reproduction of both the private, and the ‘national’ home, a construction which has persisted under neoliberalism. While often superficially gender-neutral, domopolitics actually relies upon, and reinforces, these gendered understandings of neoliberal citizenship. Domopolitical policies and discourses construct migrant women’s reproductive practices as a legitimate and necessary site of state intervention, disciplining migrant women to ensure they ‘correctly’ reproduce the neoliberal ‘national home.’

Keywords:

• Gender
• domopolitics
• migration
• neoliberalism
• reproductive rights
• migrant women

Acknowledgements

The ideas in this article were originally developed as part of my PhD thesis, supervised by Bridget Byrne and Jonathan Darling, whom I sincerely thank for their guidance. Additional thanks to Jonathan Darling for his comments on an early draft of this paper. I am also very grateful to the editors of Citizenship Studies, and the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments were tremendously helpful.

Notes

1. Asylum seekers can apply for the right to work if they have been waiting over 12 months for a decision to be made about their case (or about further submissions made after a refusal) and they are not considered responsible for the delay in the decision (Gower 2016). However, they can only take up jobs on the ‘shortage occupation list.’ In practice, it is very rare for asylum seekers to secure the right to work and take up employment (Lewis et al. 2014).

2. After the 2010 UK General Election left no party with an overall majority in parliament, the Conservative party (which had the most seats) and the Liberal Democrats entered into a Coalition. The Liberal Democrats agreed to vote with the Conservatives until the next general election, allowing the Coalition to function as a majority government.

3. Then Coalition government never came close to fulfilling their promise to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ (Portes 2015).

4. More privileged women have also been able to ‘outsource’ this labour to the less privileged (Ehrenreich 2002).

5. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/150316-0001.htm#1503166000476.

6. At present, pregnant migrants are entitled maternity care, but, if they do not qualify for free care, may be charged for it afterwards. According to Maternity Action (2017), pregnant migrants who are not eligible for free care, but cannot pay, cannot be turned away by hospitals. However, the pilot at St. George’s suggests this policy may be under revision.

7. Research suggest that the current system of charging for maternity services deters women from accessing care until late in their pregnancies, putting their health, and the health of their child, at risk (JCHR 2007; Bragg 2008).

8. Prior to the implementation of the 2012 Rules, only one of these was mandatory (Home Office 2012).