Dangerous Sex, Invisible Labour and Other Stories of the Lumpen Proletariat- Rethinking Sex Work

危险的性、无形的劳动和流氓无产阶级的其他故事——重新思考性工作

• 批准号: AH/G005702/1
• 负责人: Prabha Kotiswaran
• 金额: $ 3.72万
• 依托单位: School of Oriental and African Studies
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2009
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2009 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FG005702%2F1
• 关键词: Dangerous; Sex; Invisible; Labour; Other

We are today in the throes of a global sex panic around sex work and trafficking. Not a day goes by without mention in the media of horrific instances of sex slavery and trafficking, especially of third world women. Matching the pace of this coverage is the proliferation of law reform initiatives against trafficking and sex work by several national governments, including, the US government, which through a domestic law, has unleashed an abolitionist regime internationally. Parallel to these efforts, are international public health agencies, donor agencies and NGOs that have targeted sex worker communities as vital to their HIV prevention efforts. This has resulted in some, but only marginal, protection of sex workers' rights. It is against the backdrop of these popular representations of the sex worker as sex slave and vector of disease that I ask- what about the sex worker as worker? To further contemplate this question, I propose over the leave period, to produce a book manuscript on how to conceptualise sex work as work and a critical reader of published Indian writings on sex work. While the reader is limited to the specificities of the Indian sex work debates, the questions that animate both the book and reader are- how have feminist scholars theorised sex work? If they have predominantly viewed sex work as nothing but, patriarchal violence, does this resonate with the experiences of sex workers? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this feminist approach? If its logical outcome is to abolish sex work, what does this mean for women who today earn a living from sex work? If on the other hand, we believe that sex work involves a form of sexual labour, would we still try to abolish it? If not, should we treat it like any other form of work or does it warrant special treatment? If it is like other work, how do we protect sex workers form the harms of the sex industry? To examine these questions, I draw on a school of feminist theory that is marginalised in current debates on sex work, namely, socialist feminism. In the process of conceptualising housework as a form of reproductive labour, socialist feminism identified the sexual labour of the housewife, thus opening the door for theorising sex work as sexual labour. Socialist feminists for the most part, however, did not advocate treating sex work as legitimate work. If however, we are to assume that sex work involves sexual labour, how should we understand the political economy of sex markets? For this, I empirically study two sex industries in India, one where sex workers worked in brothels and the other where sex workers worked in more diffused institutional settings. Questions I pursue in particular are, whether sex workers work under conditions of slavery, wage relations or self-employment? In what other ways are sex workers differentially placed within the same sex industry? Can we realistically speak of all sex workers as sharing common interests? How do they continue to sell sex when most activities relating to sex work are criminal? What economies of illegality are fostered by this criminalisation of sex work? What are the social effects of such criminalisation? If we repeal the criminal law, would this automatically mean that sex workers will be better off? If not, what is the most appropriate way to regulate sex industries so as to empower sex workers? By drawing on a school of legal theory, legal realism, I investigate the various types of laws that are in fact implicated in sex industries other than the most visible law, namely, the criminal law. These include other private legal rules, informal social norms and market practices. By producing a complicated narrative of the role of the law in the sex industry, I suggest that unless we know how such laws impact sex markets, we cannot decide one way or the other, the actual effect of any particular policy on sex markets and sex workers.

今天，我们正处于围绕性工作和贩运的全球性恐慌的痛苦之中。媒体没有一天不提到性奴役和贩卖妇女，特别是第三世界妇女的可怕事件。与这一报道速度相匹配的是，包括美国政府在内的几个国家政府针对人口贩运和性工作的法律改革举措的扩散，美国政府通过国内法在国际上建立了一个废除死刑的制度。在作出这些努力的同时，国际公共卫生机构、捐助机构和非政府组织也将性工作者社区作为预防艾滋病毒工作的重点。这导致了对性工作者权利的一些保护，但只是边缘性的保护。正是在这些将性工作者视为性奴隶和疾病载体的流行说法的背景下，我问--作为工作者的性工作者怎么办？为了进一步思考这个问题，我建议在休假期间，制作一本关于如何将性工作概念化为工作的书稿，并对印度出版的性工作著作进行批判性阅读。 虽然读者被限制在印度性工作辩论的特殊性，但使这本书和读者都充满活力的问题是--女权主义学者是如何将性工作理论化的？如果他们主要把性工作看作是父权制的暴力，这是否与性工作者的经历产生共鸣？这种女权主义方法的优点和缺点是什么？如果其合乎逻辑的结果是废除性工作，这对今天以性工作为生的妇女意味着什么？另一方面，如果我们认为性工作是一种性劳动，我们还会试图废除它吗？如果不是，我们是否应该把它当作其他工作，还是应该特别对待？如果性工作和其他工作一样，我们如何保护性工作者免受性产业的伤害？ 为了研究这些问题，我借鉴了一个在当前关于性工作的辩论中被边缘化的女权主义理论流派，即社会主义女权主义。在将家务劳动概念化为一种生殖劳动的过程中，社会主义女权主义者认定了家庭主妇的性劳动，从而为将性工作理论化为性劳动打开了大门。然而，大多数社会主义女权主义者并不主张将性工作视为合法工作。然而，如果我们假设性工作涉及性劳动，我们应该如何理解性市场的政治经济学？为此，我实证研究了印度的两个性产业，一个是性工作者在妓院工作，另一个是性工作者在更分散的机构环境中工作。我特别关注的问题是，性工作者是否在奴役、工资关系或自营职业的条件下工作？在其他方面，性工作者在同一性行业中的地位有哪些不同？我们是否可以现实地说，所有性工作者都有共同的利益？当大多数与性工作有关的活动都是犯罪时，他们如何继续卖淫？将性工作定为犯罪会助长什么样的非法经济？这种刑事定罪的社会影响是什么？如果我们废除刑法，这是否意味着性工作者的境况会更好？如果没有，那么，监管性产业以增强性工作者权能的最适当方式是什么？通过借鉴法律的理论，法律的现实主义，我调查的各种类型的法律，事实上是牵连到性产业以外的最明显的法律，即刑法。这些包括其他私人法律的规则、非正式的社会规范和市场惯例。通过对法律在性产业中的作用进行复杂的叙述，我认为，除非我们知道这些法律是如何影响性市场的，否则我们无法决定任何特定政策对性市场和性工作者的实际影响。