Maria Mies

In the chapter "Feminist Research: Science, Violence and Responsbility", out of the book Ecofeminism,[8] Mies presents methodological guidelines for feminist research.

1. “The postulate of value free research, or neutrality and indifference towards the research objects, has to be replaced by conscious partiality, which is achieved through partial identification with the research objects” (p. 38).[8] In other words, this is the opposite of ‘Spectator-Knowledge’, and besides conceiving the research objects as parts of bigger social structures, also the researchers themselves are considered situated.[8]
2. “The vertical relationship between researcher and ‘research objects’, the view from above, must be replaced by the view from below” (p. 38).[8] Mies follows with discussing how research “so far has been largely an instrument of dominance and legitimation of power elites” and  “must be brought to serve the interests of dominated, exploited and oppressed groups, particularly women”. (p. 38).[8] Mies argues therefore that especially women scholars who are “committed to the cause of women’s liberation, cannot have an objective interest in a ‘view from above” since that “would mean that they would consent to their own oppression and women, because the man-women relationship represents one of the oldest examples of the view from above and may be the paradigm of all vertical hierarchical relationships” (p. 39).[8]
3. “The contemplative, uninvolved ‘spectator knowledge’ must be replaced by active participation in actions, movements and struggles for women’s emancipation” (p. 39).[8] Mies argues that since Women's Studies was born out of the women’s movement, it would not be right if Women Studies scholars would minimize the field to only academics. She adds that in order to prevent this from happening “Women’s Studies must remain closely linked to the struggles and actions of the movement” (p. 39).[8] Therefore, she does not believe in separating politics from science in the case of Women's Studies: “Women scholars [...] must take their studies into the streets” (p. 40).[8]
4. “Participation in social actions and struggles, and the integration of research into these processes, further implies that the change of the status quo becomes the starting point for a scientific quest. The motto for this approach could be: ‘If you want to know a thing, you must change it’” (p. 40).[8] In the context of Women’s Studies, this means that in order to be able to understand the patriarchal system, it is necessary to fight against women’s exploitation and oppression.[8]
5. “The research process must become a process of ‘conscientization’, both for the so-called ‘research objects’ and for the ‘research objects’” (p. 41).[8] The approach of ‘conscientization’ entails that it is not the ‘experts’ who are carrying out the study, but the oppressed group. “People who were previously objects of research become subjects of their own research and action” (p. 41).[8]
6. Going a step further than the ‘conscientization’ approach, Mies argues for a methodology that “must be accompanied by the study of women’s individual and social history” (p. 42) in order to appropriate women’s history as subjects.[8]
7. Finally, “women cannot appropriate their own history unless they begin to collectivize their own experiences” (p. 42).[8] Mies stresses that Women’s Studies must strive to overcome individualism, and strive to oppose the academization of Women’s Studies, by holding onto the original political goal of Women’s Studies.[8]

Mies’ book “Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour” was first published in 1986. The book engages with feminist discussions on the sexual division of labour and emerging ecofeminist arguments that trace the various and multiple connections between male domination over women, colonies and nature. Mies explores the ways in which the exploitation of nature and the subordination of women in Europe are interrelated as well as how these are both linked to processes of conquest and colonisation. In so doing she connects the witch-hunt, the rise of modern science, the Atlantic slave trade and the destruction of subsistence economies in colonised territories, demonstrating that the church, the state, the new capitalist class and modern scientists all collaborated in these violent processes.[3]

One of the book's main theses is that the subjugation of women as housewives who, under capitalism, are considered merely consumers as the productivity of their labour is obscured, was alongside colonisation, a necessary precondition for capital accumulation. Defining this process through the concept of 'housewifization', Mies analyses how not only did ‘housewifization’ and colonisation occur during the same period, but they were structurally linked. Moreover, the two are inseparable from the concomitant process of the subordination of nature to male domination through the rise of modern medicine, science, and economy.[3]

Mies explains herself that the book is a response to the orthodox leftist idea that “the woman question” should be secondary to the primary contradiction between capital and labour.[3] (p. 10) On the contrary, she intends to demonstrate that feminism, ecological movements, and anti-colonial movements for national liberation are structurally and ideologically connected. The book is also situated in debates between Third World women, who have often rejected feminism as a bourgeois ideology, and Western feminists who at the time of writing had only just begun to acknowledge the ways in which their calls for the liberation of women in the West were dependant on the continued exploitation of the labour of poor women in the Third world.

Mies suggests that a new feminist perspective must emerge from an understanding of these interconnected relations, that demands more than the requests of “fair-weather feminism” for equality, and instead centres its demands on the eradication of the international sexual division of labour.[3] (p. 14) To this end, she outlines 5 basic principles that she argues should guide political action from a feminist perspective:

1. Rejection and abolition of the principle of colonising dualistic divisions
2. The creation of non-exploitative, non-hierarchical, reciprocal relationships
3. The regaining of autonomy over our bodies and our lives
4. A rejection of the idea of infinite progress and acceptance of the idea that our human universe is finite, our body is finite, and the world is finite.
5. The aim of all work and human endeavour is not a never-ending expansion of wealth and commodities but human happiness or the production of life itself.[3] (p. 211)

Mies traces the historical process of the division of labour, through women’s subordination to men in early societies - from the hunter-gatherers, pastoral and agriculturalists to feudalism, early capitalism, and finally even under modern post-revolution socialist nations - to demonstrate that women’s labour and social reproduction has always been the precondition for men’s productivity and accumulation. From this analysis she challenges common misconceptions and myths about man-the-hunter, to conclude instead that women are producers of life, while “man-the-hunter is basically a parasite, not a producer.” [3] (p. 71)

A key aim of the book is to analyse the sexual division of labour with an ecofeminist lens to demonstrate how while men’s work is considered human labour, women’s work is associated with nature and seen as a natural activity. Mies stresses that what the term “sexual division of labour” hides, is that this division is not a natural division based on the biological destiny of the two sexes, but rather a relationship of domination and exploitation, the result of which is the appropriation of women’s labour.[3](p. 46) She shows how reproductive work – defined as “all the labour that goes into the production of life” – is, in the dominant patriarchal logic, not seen as a conscious interaction between humans and nature but rather an activity of nature itself.[3] (p. 45) Thus, the agency of women in processes of production is obscured. For example, the production of food through women’s subsistence work is seen merely as a natural process, something that happens unconsciously and that humans have no control over. Mies argues that this narrative has allowed not only men to appropriate the products of women’s labour, but on a broader scale significantly contributed to the establishment of an asymmetric hierarchical relationship between men and women, based on violence and exploitation.[3](p. 46)

Mies coined the term “housewifization” to define the process whereby characteristics of certain forms of labour have been associated with the housewife and vice versa, enabling the appropriation of the products of that labour.[3] (p. 74)

Mies outlines two key stages to the "housewifization" of European women. The first stage of the housewifization of European women was the production of them as "consumers and demonstrators of luxury wealth."[3] (p. 101)  In fact, "early merchant capitalism was based practically entirely on trade with luxury items from the colonies which were consumed by the European elites" and their housewives.[3] (p. 102) The second stage was the establishment of the patriarchal, monogamous nuclear family, consisting of the "forced combination of the principles of kinship and cohabitation, and the definition of the man as 'head' of this household and 'breadwinner' for the non-earning legal wife and their children."[3](p. 104)

Mies then scales this concept up to suggest that women’s labour on an international scale has been housewifized, arguing that the asymmetrical and hierarchical international division of labour is modelled on the equally asymmetric sexual division of labour in the domestic sphere.[3] (p. 110)

Moreover, through her analysis of women under colonialism in British, French and Dutch colonies such as St Domingue and Cuba, Mies concludes that the naturalisation of colonised women that associated them with beasts and nature, was the counterpart of the "civilising" of European women.[3](p. 95) Indeed, this separation became (and continues to be) an organising structural principle for all territories subjected to colonial rule. This fact structurally ties together the processes of colonisation and housewifization.

An illustration from the book The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy written in 1999 by Maria Mies and Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen.

"The Subsistence Perspective"[9] by Maria Mies and Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen explores the importance of subsistence production, meaning, the production of goods and services for one's own use or for the use of one's community, in the context of global capitalism.

Mies argued that subsistence production has historically been devalued and marginalised by capitalist systems,[9] which prioritise profit over the well-being of people and the environment. She contends that the current global economic system, which is based on the exploitation of natural resources and human labor, is unsustainable and ultimately destructive.

Mies proposed an alternative perspective, which she calls the "subsistence perspective." This perspective emphasises the importance of valuing and supporting subsistence production, and recognising the knowledge and skills of those who engage in it.[9] She argues that subsistence production can offer a path toward more sustainable, equitable, and just societies, as it prioritises human needs and the well-being of communities over profit and economic growth.

Throughout the book, Mies drew on examples from around the world to illustrate the importance of subsistence production and the ways in which it is threatened by capitalist systems. She also critiques the notion of "development" as it is currently understood, arguing that it often involves the imposition of Western values and ways of life on non-Western societies, and that it can have destructive impacts on local economies and cultures.

Overall, The Subsistence Perspective offers a critique of capitalist systems and proposes an alternative vision for a more sustainable and just future, centered around subsistence production and the well-being of communities, paving the way for current debates around Degrowth.