Metodologia

DE takes strong inspiration from feminist and gender studies, specifically in the demand for economic and social recognition of women’s non-paid work. For Gibson-Graham (2006a,b),

understanding economic diversity and how it can be operationalized is motivated by the experiences and practices of the second wave of feminist thinking. Part of the second wave of feminist

scholarship captures how women around the world have come together—particularly through actions based in a shared vison rather than under formal institutions—with the common goal of challenging the traditional roles of the patriarchal system. What unites them is a shared language and webs of signification based on the following idea: “if women are everywhere, a woman is always somewhere, and those places of women are transformed as women transform themselves” (Gibson- Graham, 2006a, p. 68). Based on this principle, Gibson-Graham (2006a,b) propose a new conception of the economy that gives recognition to the multiple ways it is practised in places and communities

around the world. Gibson-Graham (2006a,b) also argue that capitalism should be understood as only one economic structure that occurs in parallel with many other market and non-market

relationships. This perspective opens opportunities to overcome discourses of capitalism that frame it as hegemonic, destructive and untouchable. The feminist ideal that everyday actions and politics can lead to a transformation, inspires DE to propose a different global understanding of the economy, that can be built through more ethical, sustainable, empathetic and inclusive economic practices, leading to communities of well-being42.

DE and feminist thinking are linked not only in terms of a call for action for economic and social transformation, but they also reflect on how traditional measurements of economic growth, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), fail to account for the social reproductive work of women43_.

Soupourmas and Ironmonger (2002) estimate that in 2002 household work contributed an economic value the equivalent of 80% of Australia’s GDP. They propose a measurement of Australia’s Gross Household Product (GHP) as a method to account for unpaid labour and households’ capital. Making a similar point, Rai et al. (2019) argue that women’s care and household work are commonly

conceived as ‘second category activities’ to the economy, although they are important contributions to a country’s economy and development. Therefore, Gibson-Graham (2006a,b) argues that the non- paid work by women in the home constitutes an economic entity by itself, where market and non- market negotiations take place among women and family members. Such a perspective differs from others which situate households as a space that only consumes and depends on the external economy. Instead, they argue, the household economy is supported thanks to the work of many people and the intricate interdependence of household members, the community and market-based economies (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013).

In the Los Santos context, coffee production follows the traditional structure of a male head of the household with control over all farming activities, household income and expenditure, and land-use, even where the land is an asset inherited by a woman. Women assume the social reproductive work of being housekeepers and family carers because, in the local cultural beliefs, they are considered too weak physically for farm work. Likewise, any work related to coffee activity – especially during harvest – such as picking and administrative tasks are perceived to be unpaid help. Lopez et al. (2017) argue that these cultural barriers limit the economic empowerment of women in coffee- producing households because their work is seen as an extension of their unpaid domestic work. However, families emphasise the idea that in the rural family enterprise model, in-kind payment is

42 _{Gibson-Graham (2006a, 2006b) also refers to this concept as communities of-being-in-common}

43 _{Rai, Brown, and Ruwanpura (2019, p. 368) define it as “the reproduction of life itself, which includes the reproduction}

and care of human beings, production within the home and informal labour that supports and sometimes challenges the cultural infrastructure of social relations”.

fundamental to the profitability of coffee production and to ensuring that income lasts for the rest of the year.

Safri and Graham (2010) argue that households are an everyday site of production. This means that whether women get paid or not they are still contributing to the development of their community in aspects such as childcare, health care, elderly care, affective labour, education, cooking, cleaning, shopping laundry, gardening and food production, to mention some. Testimonies shared by women in micro-mill households mirrors these variety of roles women play and are responsible for. Monica proudly states how her household work is central to the functioning of the micro-mill:

“By giving them [husband and sons] clean clothes, food and a clean house, is the way I contribute to the micro-mill during harvest season. Can you imagine them working from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. and me asking them for help? I think they have lots of work and I can help with those things.”

Likewise, Martiza’s description of her weekly activities during the harvest, resemble the multiple activities for which women are responsible:

“I have a full-time job, I take care of the boys [17 and 10 years old], and I help with the micro-mill during summer. I come from work and immediately I head to the micro-mill to see in what I can help. It can be in roasting, packaging or preparing samples for buyers […] and also, I just completed my licentiate degree44 _{with honours”.}

Not least important are Tanias’s reasons of why she took over the micro-mill. She saw that a generational change was needed, in face of her mother feeling tired and not able to manage all the household and micro-mill duties she had.

“My mom had to worry about the household duties, but also the stress of taking care of, let’s say, a group of 15 visitors. I guess she would have enjoyed it more if she was only dedicated to the mill; but she had to do many other things.”

Women’s micro-mill experiences of non-paid and paid work are diverse. For younger women, such as Tania, Anita, Rita, Christina and Dayana, their families’ investment in a micro-mills has opened the possibility to fully develop themselves in the specialty coffee business. In these cases, in particular, their mothers were the ones who took the lead 10 years ago during the early years of the

enterprises. Now their mothers concentrate on taking care of the household, facilitating other family members’ dedication to full-time work in the micro-mill. Other women have had different

experiences. Sarah, after getting married, having children and also following a professional career,

44 _{This is a type of degree recognised in Latin America after you have obtained a Bachelor’s degree. It is equivalent to an}

has delinked herself from the ‘hands on’ work in micro-mills. She now concentrates on the mill’s paperwork. However, for many others, such as Lorna, Rosa, Monica, Cintia and Damaris, the decision to have a micro-mill as a family enterprise has opened up many opportunities. It has allowed them to revitalise their expectations of coffee as a livelihood, as Monica mentioned: “I can’t imagine what our future would be without this, maybe here in the same routine.” Micro-mills have impacted women’s lives in terms of agency, ownership of resources and self-awareness of their roles and their

capabilities within the coffee economy. Therefore, the following section analyses the empowerment experiences that these women are living. Through their testimonies, the different roles they play as women, housewives and coffee specialists will be explored.