Beyond the screen: feminism, solidarity, and the foundations of socio-economic dynamism
By Lorenzo Bona
Introduction
Recently, I happened to watch the acclaimed Italian film C’è ancora domani (There’s Still Tomorrow), directed by and starring Paola Cortellesi. The film depicts domestic patriarchy, gender disparities, economic dependence, and marginalization in post-war Italy, raising questions about the unfinished struggle to overcome unjust inequalities.
The film prompted me to revisit some writings of Gianfranco Sabattini, an economist whom I had the good fortune to have as a teacher and mentor.
Across three key articles, Sabattini develops an economic interpretation of the evolution of feminism, drawing on themes and observations highlighted by the philosopher and feminist thinker Nancy Fraser in her analysis of this evolution, particularly those presented in the article “How feminism became capitalism’s handmaiden – and how to reclaim it” and related thoughts developed, together with Cinzia Arruzza and Tithi Bhattacharya, in “Feminism for the 99%”.
At the outset, Sabattini – in line with his long-standing intellectual commitment to a more just and prosperous society – emphasizes that the criticism and rejection of patriarchal culture were legitimate and well-founded demands of the feminist movement, and therefore important for progress toward a more inclusive and just society and, in turn, for further socio-economic development. He then draws on some of Fraser’s concerns regarding the more recent evolution of the feminist movement, developing them into a broader economic perspective.
The following sections therefore review Sabattini’s interpretation of Fraser’s ideas, focusing on aspects that he seems to stress as particularly relevant. They then examine how Sabattini incorporates these ideas into a broader socio-economic perspective, before offering some concluding reflections on their possible relevance also for entrepreneurship, business development, and economic growth.
1. From Socio-Economic Emancipation to Market-Oriented Individualism?
In reviewing Fraser’s analysis of the evolution of the feminist movement, Sabattini also emphasizes feminism’s broader emancipatory potential: its capacity to help reduce socio-economic inequalities and promote equity and solidarity regardless of gender, for the benefit of all individuals, including those who are marginalized or disadvantaged.
In doing so, he appears to focus particularly on three key aspects:
A) The Tension Between Emancipation and Market Access
One of Fraser’s concerns that Sabattini considers particularly relevant is the possibility that parts of the feminist movement may have shifted direction, perhaps inadvertently: some legitimate emancipatory demands – including individual autonomy, fair access to paid employment opportunities, and the rejection of the traditional division of family roles – may have come to converge with the priorities of an economic system increasingly oriented toward market competition and individual advancement, which sometimes seems to give insufficient weight to wider social considerations.
Summarizing Fraser’s analysis, Sabattini seems to reformulate it around these points:
many feminist struggles were largely connected to solidarity, democratic participation, and broader efforts to challenge socio-economic inequalities and promote a more inclusive and just society;
over time, elements of an increasingly individualistic and market-oriented conception of emancipation appear to have found their way into significant parts of the movement, placing greater emphasis on access to the labor market, professional advancement, and individual autonomy;
the problem is not women’s participation in paid work itself, nor the legitimate aspirations for career development and advancement, but the risk of reducing emancipation to individual advancement rather than broader collective and solidarity-based goals. Such a reduction could lead to a somewhat narrow understanding of emancipation based on market access and individual advancement, with the risk that it could primarily benefit women who are already well-positioned within the existing labor market, rather than promoting a broader transformation of the social and economic conditions affecting women more generally.
B) Individual Advancement and Solidarity: A Problematic Relationship
A second of Fraser’s concerns that Sabattini draws attention to relates to potential risks associated with this shift:
the growing emphasis on career advancement, merit, autonomy, and financial independence within some influential strands of contemporary feminism risks aligning feminist aspirations too closely with an excessively individualistic interpretation of market logic, while questions of social solidarity, care, and the organization of a more just society may receive less attention.
C) The Divide Between Market Work and Everyday Life
A third of Fraser’s concerns that Sabattini highlights can be summarized as follows:
there is an important distinction between work organized for market exchange and work necessary to sustain everyday life;
this distinction can easily be overlooked when economic value is primarily associated with market activity;
there is therefore a need to better recognize the importance and value of unpaid activities, particularly care work, and to acknowledge their broader contribution to society.
2. The Socio-Economic Impact: Labor-Market Access and Economic Insecurity
Building on these ideas, Sabattini develops a more comprehensive socio-economic line of reasoning.
He argues that women’s increased participation in the formal labor market was not accompanied by a corresponding transformation of the traditional division of paid work, domestic labor, and care.
In this context, a related concern expressed in Fraser’s analysis, and reflected in Sabattini’s wide-ranging socio-economic perspective, is that, if the organization of care and domestic work remains largely unchanged, alongside other features of existing socio-economic and redistributive arrangements, many women may experience a form of double burden: participation in paid employment, often under precarious conditions, alongside continuing responsibility for a substantial share of unpaid work.
Sabattini further interprets the increase in women’s participation in the formal labor market, in the absence of corresponding changes in existing economic and social structures, as contributing to a growing pool of available labor. His point is not to question women’s entry into paid employment itself, but at the way the economy tends to absorb additional workers without adequately transforming the organization of paid work, domestic labor, and care. In his interpretation, this process may put downward pressure on wages and increase exposure to precarious employment and economic insecurity.
The issue is therefore not women’s participation in paid work itself, but the economic conditions under which that participation takes place, the failure to adequately recognize and redistribute the responsibilities associated with care and domestic work, and the tendency to overlook the socio-economic importance of caring for others.
3. Toward a More Inclusive and Dynamic Society
Taken together, these arguments point to a broader institutional question: individual freedom, autonomy, and equal rights and opportunities are important for building a more just and inclusive society. However, they may not be sufficient when people enter markets from very different social and economic positions.
From this perspective, Sabattini’s argument seems to point to the need to explore how market and non-market institutions can be better combined to promote greater socio-economic inclusivity and improve the efficiency of the socio-economic system.
4. The Constructive Proposal: A Basic Income-Based Approach
Within this socio-economic perspective, Sabattini points to welfare reforms based on the concept of basic income as one possible institutional mechanism – to be conceived as more than simply an additional form of welfare assistance – for promoting greater inclusion, greater economic autonomy for individuals, and a better-performing socio-economic system.
The idea of basic income has a long and diverse intellectual history. Although it has been proposed in various forms that can differ significantly from one another, its underlying rationale appears to have found support among economists with very different socio-economic perspectives, such as Friedrich Hayek and James Meade.
For present purposes, the basic-income conception can be understood, with some simplification, as an individual and universal payment provided without means testing or work requirements. The level of the payment may vary according to the specific model adopted.
Reforms based on this concept could, for example, reduce economic insecurity and provide greater support for people engaged in activities — such as care, education, solidarity, and social cooperation — that may have great social importance despite generating little direct market income or producing benefits that are not immediately or adequately reflected in market terms.
Ultimately, greater prosperity requires a better alignment between equity and efficiency goals, in ways that help reduce inequality, foster a more balanced distribution of productivity gains, and promote a wider recognition of the work that markets do not always adequately reward.
Conclusion
C’è ancora domani provides a valuable reminder of the historical conditions against which the struggle for women’s emancipation developed, highlighting the connections between patriarchal authority, economic dependence, and broader efforts to expand democratic participation.
Sabattini’s framework – which seems to share several points of convergence with Fraser’s analysis – suggests that genuine emancipation, inclusion, and socio-economic progress require more than individual career advancement or market participation: they also depend on institutions capable of combining economic activity with equity, greater recognition of socially valuable work, and economic security. In this respect, his proposal for basic-income-based reforms points toward a potentially valuable direction.
These considerations also appear to have broader socio-economic relevance for entrepreneurship, business development, and economic growth.
Greater economic autonomy, more equitable access to opportunities, and appropriate institutional support can enable more people to participate in economic life, develop their capabilities, and pursue entrepreneurial initiatives.
In this sense, reducing marginalization and inequalities and minimizing the impact of economic insecurity are not only matters of social justice; from a market-oriented perspective, they may also help societies make fuller use of their productive potential by better recognizing the value and contributions of all their members.
From this viewpoint, the feminist debate is not only about challenging gender-based inequalities. It also raises broader questions about how societies organize economic participation, distribute opportunities, address the costs of marginalization, and reconcile individual initiative with the social conditions that enable people and businesses to flourish.
Notes
Arruzza, C., Bhattacharya, T., and Fraser, N., Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto, London/New York, Verso, 2019.
Fraser, N., “How feminism became capitalism's handmaiden - and how to reclaim it”, The Guardian, 14.10.2013.
Hayek, F.A., Law, Legislation and Liberty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
Meade, J.E., “Fifteen Propositions Concerning the Building of an Equitable, Full-Employment, Non-Inflationary, Free-Enterprise Economy,” Economic Notes, 1993, 22–23, pp. 402 – 419.
Sabattini, G., “Il femminismo ha perso la sua natura originaria?” Democrazia Oggi, 14.04.2015.
Sabattini, G., Welfare State: Nascita, evoluzione e crisi. Le prospettive di riforma, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2009.
Sabattini, G., “I limiti del femminismo nella società capitalista”, Avanti!, 10.01.2020.
Sabattini, G., “Il femminismo ancella del capitalismo?”, Democrazia Oggi, 14.01.2020.