“Sociologists who study organizations sometimes use the term ‘field’ to describe a set of organizations linked together as competitors and collaborators within a social space devoted to a particular type of action—such as a market for certain products, the pursuit of urban development, or the realm of electoral politics. Agreements struck among the organizations that compose a field set the bounds on what kinds of organizational and individual action are possible.”
Nicole Marwell, 2007
In the community organization I work with at home, we’re always dealing with a recurring cast of characters: elected officials, CEOs, other NGOs, public figures… They’re all connected in some way, either through money or through relationships, or both. For example, we recently realized that a city council member is married to a “political consultant” the local police union hired for $50,000. As long-time organizers, we know who pulls what strings and can make quick assumptions on who to trust based on that shared, implicit knowledge. Saying “Oh, she’s best friends with Kelly Tomblin’s niece,” for example, is shorthand for “proceed with caution.” Unless we are explicitly drawing these relations out in a power-mapping session, this deep understanding of the field comes with time.
I was walking to an event with three veteran SEDOAC members recently and found myself unable to keep up with the conversation. They were talking about an event wherein SEDOAC representatives were invited to speak with a foreign ambassador, eliciting what they described as jealousy from other NGOs. They were rattling off names of individuals and organizations, and they responded to each other with nods of understanding, a roll of the eyes, or an interjection: “And I told [organization XYZ]*, I’m with SEDOAC, and I’m not changing!” To me, it was like they were speaking in code, but I recognized the sort of code they were speaking in. Back at home, I have heard and fully understood acronym-riddled sentences such as: “We need to appeal to EPA and NMED to circumvent TCEQ’s approval of EPE’s permit.”** When, in a meeting regarding the implementation of the Domestic Workers Convention, an organizer mentioned that we could reach the Minister of Labor through his wife who is the Women’s Secretary of a big trade union confederation, I smiled to myself in recognition. My excitement at the dots that were being connected was further punctuated by the debate that followed wherein some attendees refused to work with syndicates point-blank for some reason everyone but me understood (there’s a research question for you). This is all to say that the migrant domestic work (MDW) field has revealed more of its breadth to me every day – it’s like putting together a puzzle. Here is a quick review of the pieces I have:
Third Sector
I propose that we mark the events of 2011 as the exogenous shocks leading to the field’s most recent evolution. It was in this year that the ILO authorized C189 and the 15-M movement began, both of which gave rise to new permutations of established groups or new organizations altogether. I also theorize that the generation of MDW activists that emerged in 2011 have since worked with and against each other, and are now sorted into their corresponding organizations on the basis of loyalty and seniority. Groups have broken down and re-formed but I suggest that individual leaders active in the field since 2011 have acted as nodes around which inter-organizational interactions have occured. Also important is the amount of funding and actually-employed domestic workers each group has had. This impacts who acts as the sector’s liaison to state and press entities, a contentious role that requires frequent negotiation.
Today, Asamblea Feminista por un Empleo de Hogar con Derechos collectivizes various feminist NGO representatives and individuals working on the implementation of the Domestic Worker’s Convention (C189). SEDOAC is not officially part of this network, but is familiar with them. The previous coalition was Grupo Turin, established in 2012 and comprised of various feminist and labor organizations such as SEDOAC, Latinamerican and Caribbean Women’s Network, Brujas Migrantes, and Collectivo Territorio Domestico. Each group maintains relationships or overlaps with related organizations having to do with housing, labor, migration, or women’s rights. These include, for example, Provivienda, AESCO, and Regularizacion Ya. MDW organizers find it essential that their struggle remain relevant to other issue-based organizations. This is notable considering that domestic workers are often isolated from women’s rights groups, anti-racist groups, or labor unions in many other countries (Marchetti, 2021).
Academics are also important actors in the field, developing research and guiding policy decisions. Local universities like Universidad Complutense de Madrid and external research collectives like Ad Los Molinos, for example, are notable incubators of scholarship related to domestic work in Spain. They maintain close relationships with NGOs and publish collaborative reports and dossiers.
Governance
Governments, political parties, and international agencies play a double role in the field as both antagonists and accomplices. Since C189 has taken ten years to be ratified, the third sector has generally been united in applying pressure to public officials, regardless of their party. Now that C189 is on its way to ratification, MDWs are considering strategic alliances with the likes of the Ministry of Labor or progressive party members to ensure the implementation of C189 in the national legal structure. It is yet to be seen whether the ILO or UN will act as intermediaries between NGOs and their government.
Also relevant is an ongoing debate within MDW circles on how much organizations should rely on the state as a harbinger of better working and living conditions, now that the possibility of legal regulations have come into sight. At SEDOAC, it is often affirmed that though the state should assume the burden of caring for its constituency rather than outsourcing it to foreign labor, the government alone – which is structurally flawed – cannot “save” MDWs.
Civil Society
The opinions of the media and, consequently, civil society, do impact the work of MDWs in Spain, though I have not yet determined to what extent. Employers of MDWs are obvious stakeholders in the sector’s regulation, but it is unclear what the general public can do to sway policy decisions past individual lobbying and voicing public opinions. It is clear, though, that the situation of MDWs remains largely invisiblized to the general public. SEDOAC cites the uptick in media and public attention to their situation since 2011 as one of their biggest successes.
*Anecdotally, I had attended a meeting with “organization XYZ” prior to having met SEDOAC and when I introduced myself as a SEDOAC intern I received some side-eyeing I had not understood until this conversation, a week later.
Leave a Reply