D omestic D istinctions: constructing difference among paid domestic workers in T oronto

Livein paid domestic work represents a peculiar form of paid employment and employer± employee relations. Contradictions and ambiguities arise from the domestic worker’s `workplace’ b eing her employer’s `home’; while intimacy, affective labour and a high degree of personalism veil the asymmetrical class relation between employer and employee. In T oronto, employers are often white women, while domestic workers are often (im)migrant women, especially t̀hird world’ women of colour. Given this, we draw on indepth interviews w ith paid domestic workers working in T oronto to examine ways in which the employerÐ employee relations are constructed through interlocking, relational systems of difference, especially gender, r̀ace’/ ethnicity, nationality, immigration/ citiz enship status and language. W e focus on three major aspects of the employer± employee work relation from the viewpoint of the domestic workers Ð livingin, being l̀ike one of the family’, and feelings of respect, dignity and selfworth. W e ® nd that many of the women shared a number of common concerns and experiences. However, the speci® c articulation of systems of difference led to a range of experiences of the extent of asymmetry in employer± employee power relations. Have you seen the movie Mary Poppins? There’s a song that says that if you can ® nd the good things, then everything else is OK. What she says is actually amazing. The kids love it too. It’ s my theme song to keep me going sometimes. That is our song, the nanny song. `You ® nd the fun and the job’s a game’. That’s exactly it, à spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down’ , that’s it literally, and ® guratively speaking. A pat on the back goes a long way. But I didn’t get that at all. That’s the reason why I was unhappy [with her previous employer]. (Silke, a 30-year-old German woman employed as a domestic worker in Toronto). Silke came to Toronto in 1986 to work as a nanny. She is one of more than 90,000 women who have arrived in Canada over the past 15 years under two federal government programmes (the Foreign Domestic Movement programme, 1981± 1992, and the Live-in Caregivers Programme, 1992 to the present). These programmes require that domestic workers/caregivers be l̀ive-ins’ at their employer’s homes for their ® rst 2 years in Canada. Silke had a dif® cult relationship with her employer, partly as a result of the contradictions and ambiguities associated with her `workplace’ being her emCorrespondence: Bernadette Stiell, School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 0966-369X/97/030339-21 $7.00 Ó1997Carfax Publishing Ltd 339 340 B. Stiell & K. E ngland ployer’s h̀ome’. In this paper we explore how paid domestic workers in Toronto, including Silke, negotiate the dynamics of their employer± employee relation. Unpaid domestic labour and the gender division of labour have been central themes for feminist geographers over the last 20 years. There has been extensive exploration of these questions in the context of heterosexual couples, with ample evidence that regardless of paid employment status, women have primary responsibility for domestic labour. The increasing popularity, especially among dual-career couples, of employing paid domestic workers changes the complexion of these questions for such households. It is usually the woman in these households who employs and manages the paid domestic worker. As in Canada as a whole, live-in paid domestic work in Toronto is usually the work of migrant or immigrant women, especially t̀hird world’ women of colour. However, most employers are white. Thus, our investigation of the employer± employee work relation hinges on an exploration of difference and diversity. Recent discussions in feminist studies stress the simultaneous and inseparable operation of various social relations of difference. In other words, social relations of difference are not merely additive, instead the experience of one transforms the experience of the others. Taken together, gender, r̀ace’/ethnicity, class and so on form interlocking, relational systems of oppression and privilege within which there are a multiplicity of identities, which in turn gain meaning in relation to other identities (Spelman, 1988; hooks, 1989; Hill-Collins, 1990; McDowell, 1991; Kobayashi & Peake, 1994; Ruddick, 1996). In this paper we explore the experiential pluralities of women in paid domestic work, keeping in mind hooks’ words that ìnterlocking systems of domination 1⁄4 acknowledge the diversity and complexity of female experience, of (their) relationship to power and domination’ (1989, p. 21). Towards a Household Geography of Paid Domestic Work Two trends are emerging from the small, but growing geographic literature on paid domestic labour. One set of studies highlights the increase in the national and international migration of women domestic workers (Radcliffe, 1990; Mattingley, 1996; England & Stiell, 1997; Pratt, 1997). A second set links the re-emergence of paid domestic work in advanced Western countries to the increase in women, particularly mothers, employed in well-paid, high-status jobs in the service class (Gregson & Lowe, 1994; Moss, 1995a). Both these trends are evident in Toronto. Domestic workers are one of Canada’s largest group of temporary foreign workers, and the majority of legally documented, foreign domestic workers reside in the Toronto area (Serwonka, 1991; Sherman, 1996). Not surprisingly, most Canadian research on foreign domestic workers focuses on Toronto (Silvera, 1989; Arat-KocË & Villasin, 1990; Cohen, 1991; Serwonka, 1991; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1994, 1995; Arat-KocË & Giles, 1994; England & Stiell, 1997; but see Pratt, 1997, for a Vancouver case study). At the same time, Toronto has seen an exceptionally large increase in the numbers of women in paid employment (especially those working as managers and professionals in the advanced services), which has been linked to the increased demand for paid domestic workers in the past decade or so (Bradshaw-Camball & Cohen, 1988; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1994). While our focus here is at the scale of the household, the socio-spatial relations we describe are linked to wider spatial scales. For example, a large proportion of Canada’s foreign domestic workers are from the t̀hird world’ and so, to some extent, the legacy of colonialism and the subsequent geographies of underdevelopment and poverty help generate the international supply of domestic workers. On the other hand, the demand D omestic D istinctions in T oronto 341 for domestic workers results from socio-economic changes within CanadaÐ the continuing shortage of affordable, quality childcare, the increase in dual-income and dual-career couples, and the feminisation of employment, particularly high-status occupations. These, in turn, are re ̄ ections of the globalisation of the economy and the shift to service industries (Bradshaw-Camball & Cohen, 1988; Enloe, 1989; Arat-KocË , 1992b; Murdock, 1992; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1994). The backdrop to our study is embedded in trends at the global, international (patterns of development, immigration and the globalisation of the economy), regional and metropolitan scales (spatially uneven patterns of economic growth and of women’s employment). Furthermore, while the interviews enabled us to take a peek behind the front doors of their workplaces, the dynamism behind these front doors has rami® cations at every other `door’ along a spectrum of geographical scales. For instance, attitudes and demands of employers affect the day-to-day operation of domestic worker placement agencies with Toronto-wide catchment areas. Employers can, in turn, in ̄ uence policy directions at Employment and Immigration Canada; and, of course, Employment and Immigration Canada in ̄ uences the position of domestic workers (England & Stiell, 1997). B lurring the `Public’/ `Private’ and `H ome’/ `W ork’ D ivides Since 1981, Canada’s federal policies have strictly stipulated that foreign domestic workers can only enter Canada if they l̀ive-in’ for 2 years. Various advocacy groups have lobbied to remove the live-in requirement, but the government insists that the demand is only for livein domestic workers, and that liveout jobs in domestic work can be easily ® lled by workers already in Canada (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1991, 1992). Live-in domestic work represents a peculiar form of paid employment and employer± employee relations. First and foremost, the domestic worker’s `workplace’ is her employer’s home, with its high degree of personalism in a p̀rivate’ (as opposed to the more usual p̀ublic’) domain of work. So, live-in paid domestic work blurs the boundaries between h̀ome’ and `work’ and `public’ and p̀rivate’ which, in turn, complicates the employer± employee relation. Secondly, the work relation is shaped by intimacy, affective labour, ideologies of the family, as well as public discourse about `good mothering’ . It is a work relation summarised by the notion that it is a l̀abour of love’ and that paid domestic workers are Like One of the F amily (Childress, 1956) [1]. Thirdly, that the boundary of public and private is blurred and even unde® ned, means that live-in domestic work can lead to exploitation (Rollins, 1985; Colen, 1989; Arat-KocË , 1992b; Ng, 1993; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1994; Gregson & Lowe, 1994; Thornton-Dill, 1994). For example, Arat-KocË and Villasin (1990) found that 65% of the domestic workers they surveyed in the Toronto area were routinely required to work overtime, 44% of whom received no compensation. More generally, Bakan and Stasiulis (1994) remark that: Domestic workers are highly vulnerable to abusive conditions as a result of the live-in requirement and the ambiguity of the social space constructed out of relations between live-in domestic workers and their employers1⁄4 . Waged domestic workers are commonly expected to offer time and services out of goodwill to their employing families in ways that would be unthinkable in most public employment situations in an advanced capital state. Domestic workers are reluctant to escape such imposition, however, because of their requisite live-in status and the perpetual threat of deportation associated with workplace con ̄ ict or employer reprisals. (1994, pp. 16± 17). 342 B. Stiell & K. E ngland That the household is in the p̀rivate’ sphere and that paid domestic work is imbued with the l̀ike one of the family’ ideology, veils the asymmetrical class relation between employer and employee. There is a c̀lass difference’ between employer and employeeÐ one is selling her labour to the other for a wage (Gaitskell et al., 1984; Gregson & Lowe, 1994). When an employee is legally required to live-in as part of her job, work relations are complicated by antagonisms and ambiguities based on the merging of public `work’ and private `home’ spheres, and the emotional complexities of trying to simultaneously maintain both a personal relationship and a work relationship. The literature on the experience of paid domestic workers highlights a set of commonalities. It tends to be characterised by oppressive material conditions, including isolation, loneliness, powerlessness and invisibility. Even for the liveout domestic workers (who form the focus of many non-Canadian studies), exploitation is a frequent experience, imposed by long working hours, unpaid overtime, and limited time off. For some domestic workers, working in what they see as a low-status occupation means that stigma, low self-esteem and low self-worth are also relatively common. In part, these experiences relate to the asymmetrical power relations between the domestic worker and her employer (Cock, 1980; Gaitskell et al., 1984; Rollins, 1985; Glenn, 1986, 1992; Bradshaw-Camball & Cohen, 1988; Colen, 1989; Romero, 1992; Thornton-Dill, 1994; Mattingley, 1996). The characteristics and experiences of domestic work are further exacerbated when the domestic worker is l̀iving in’. Certainly, signi® cant improvement in work experience is reported when the l̀ive-in’ arrangement is removed (Colen, 1989; Romero, 1992). This is clearly the case in the US where the trend towards live-out, `day-work’, multiple employers and more formal work schedules has decreased the intensity of isolation, dependence and exploitation which are still features of live-in domestic work in Canada. The Canadian literature on domestic workers also emphasises a key difference among groups of foreign domestic workers. Some women (most often from the t̀hird world’ ) view Canada’s foreign domestic worker/live-in caregiver policies as their only opportunity to apply for landed immigrant (permanent resident) status as an independent migrant. For other women (usually Europeans), the policies are regarded as a way of travelling and working, while many non-Anglophone Europeans look upon them as an opportunity to learn English. Cohen (1991, p. 199) describes these women as t̀ransient workers’ , since they usually intend to return to their countries of origin, and not apply for landed immigrant status (also see Arat-KocË 1992a, 1992b; Murdock, 1992; Ng, 1993; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1994, 1995; England & Stiell, 1997). More generally, r̀ace’/ethnicity has been a signi® cant theme in many studies of domestic workers in Canada and the US (Rollins, 1985; Glenn, 1986, 1992; Silvera, 1989; Arat-KocË , 1992a, 1992b; Ng, 1993; Arat-KocË & Giles, 1994; Thornton-Dill, 1994; Mattingley, 1996). Also, in Canada, at least, there is evidence that strongly suggests that paid domestic work has become racialised. Key to the process of racialisation is the ideology that a domestic worker’s relative worth is judged relative to the poverty (or wealth) of her country of origin. European women seem to be accorded more prestige than t̀hird world’ women. Moreover, it seems that Europeans may receive higher pay, better treatment, and be regarded as `nannies’ in the strictest sense of doing mainly childcare. `Third world’ women may receive less pay and be treated less well, while being deemed d̀omestics’ who are expected to do extensive housework as well as childcare (Arat-KocË , 1992b; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1994, 1995). Despite their vulnerability, domestic workers are not helpless victims. Their strategies for survival and struggles to organise have been persistent themes in Canada (Cohen, D omestic D istinctions in T oronto 343 1991; Serwonka, 1991) and the US (Rollins, 1985; Romero, 1992). Attention has focused on domestic workers’ creating coping strategies within the workplace (that is their employer’s home), as well as networks and informal support groups with other domestic workers (Cock, 1980; Cohen, 1991; Thornton-Dill, 1994). There are also collective, formal acts of struggle and resistance by domestic workers, although attempts at unionising have not always been successful. [2] For example, in Canada, domestic workers rights advocacy groupÐ such as INTERCEDE (International Coalition to End Domestics’ Exploitation) Toronto Organisation for Domestic Workers [3]Ð have been prominent in their struggles to improve domestic workers’ rights, especially regarding employment legislation, access to collective bargaining and the removal of the live-in stipulation (Brand, 1987; Arat-KocË & Villasin, 1990; Serwonka, 1991; Ng, 1993; ILGWU & INTERCEDE, 1993). E mployer± E mployee R elations Previous studies indicate that women are more likely to hire domestic workers if they are unable to negotiate an equitable division of domestic labour with their male partners (Rollins, 1985; Hertz, 1986; Arat-KocË , 1992b; Ng, 1993; Gregson & Lowe, 1994). In other words, despite the growth in women’s employment, women continue to be largely responsible for domestic work whether as paid domestic workers, or as `managers’ of domestic workers they hire. However, the gender commonality between employer and employee is often marked by myriad differences. For example, that immigrant women of colour are over-represented among domestic workers is naturalised as their being predisposed to domestic work (Rollins, 1985; Glenn, 1992; Macklin, 1992; Ng, 1993; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1995). Macklin (1992) demonstrates this point with the example of Mary, the white Canadian employer of Delia, a Filipina domestic worker: Mary (can) objectify Delia in various ways that are in ̄ uenced, but not precluded, by gender. For example, Mary can hardly claim that Delia is ideally suited to domestic work because she is a woman without impugning herself, but she can fall back on F ilipino women being `naturally’ hard working, subservient, loyal, tidy housekeepers and `good with children’ . In this context, race, ethnicity and culture conjoin with sex to create a sub-category of women whose subordination other women can rationalise by projecting onto them the stereotypical f̀eminine’ qualities that patriarchy has used against women generallyo (1992, p. 754, emphasis in the original). Of course, not all employer± employee relations in paid domestic work are exploitative and abusive. Bradshaw-Camball and Cohen (1988) suggest that the range and variety of employer± employee relations can be placed along two intersecting continua: one representing the domestic worker’s s̀ense of self-worth’ , the other representing the employer’s c̀oncern with equity and fairness’. So, for instance, potentially exploitative work relations may result from an employer with little c̀oncern with equity and fairness’ employing a domestic worker with a low s̀ense of self-worth’ . The employer’s and domestic worker’ s location on these continua are mediated by issues of identity. Employers of domestic workers in Toronto are more likely to be white and middle-class and, most commonly, Anglophone. On the other hand, domestic workers are frequently of a different r̀ace’/ethnicity, country of origin, immigration/citizenship 344 B. Stiell & K. E ngland status, and language, and these differences can alter the complexion of employer± employee relations. In this paper, we take the ® rst world/third world dichotomy as a starting point. However, we want to avoid an over-emphasis on the ® xed and oppositional categories of black/white dichotomy of r̀ace’. This is particularly important in the case of foreign domestic workers in Canada, because if the more subtle differences of language are not accentuated, Filipinas might not be differentiated from Afro-Caribbeans (the two largest groups of foreign domestic workers in Canada). Even a homogeneous white or European category disguises language and cultural differences. In English-speaking Canada language is important in differentiating between Anglophone, white immigrants (Americans, British and Irish, for example) and non-Anglophone, white immigrants. Among this latter group, cultural diversities further differentiate East Europeans from West Europeans and in turn, French from, for instance, Germans. At the same time, the black/white dichotomy tends to de-emphasise the oppression of white women by other white women, and ignores class differences among black women, with the assertion that most white women are middle-class and privileged, while black women are working-class and oppressed. In addition, much of the previous literature on domestic workers considers the r̀ace’/ethnicity, class and gender identities of one ethno-cultural group of domestic workersÐ for instance, African-Americans (Thornton-Dill, 1994; Rollins, 1985), black South Africans (Cock, 1980; Gaitskell et al., 1984), Japanese-Americans (Glenn, 1986, 1992), Afro-Caribbean Canadians (Silvera, 1989) and Chicanas (Romero, 1992). In light of the diversity among Canada’s foreign domestic workers, we look at a number of groups of paid domestic workers in Toronto. Our analysis highlights the simultaneous operation of systems of difference (gender, r̀ace’/ethnicity, class, language and so on) that texture the experience of paid domestic workers, and emphasises that within these interlocking systems there are a range of locations with varying degrees of power and marginality. Background to the Study The empirical portion of our paper is based on our collaborative analysis of 18 lengthy, in-depth interviews conducted by Bernadette with women who were, or had been, paid domestic workers in Toronto (see Table 1; the women are identi® ed by pseudonyms). The women were reached through notices in the of® ces of INTERCEDE and s̀nowballing’. The women interviewed came from nine countries of originÐ Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Eire, Jamaica, Philippines and Thailand. In no way do we contend that this small sample is representative of all domestic workers in Toronto; rather, we believe these 18 women re ̄ ect some of the diverse identities and experiences of this varied group of workers. The majority of the women were in their twenties and thirties, all but two were single (the two who were married were also the only ones with children). One was Canadian, ® ve were landed immigrants; of the others, ® ve were on open permits (an immigration status between a temporary work permit and landed immigrant), and seven were on temporary work permits. Most of the women were live-ins, but three were live-outs and another three (who were no longer on temporary work permits) had recently left paid domestic work. Our focus in this paper is the experiences of domestic workers, rather than their employers who, although being the other side of the employer± employee relationship, were not interviewed for two reasons. First, we felt that given the uneven balance of D omestic D istinctions in T oronto 345 T ab le 1 . C ha ra ct er ist ic s of do m es tic w or ke rs in te rv ie w ed