Marxist Feminism
3
1 Dr. Richard Clarke LITS2307 Notes11A MARXIST FEMINISM Gender is often defined, you might recall, as the social construction of sex, that is, the interpretations imposed upon the anatomical sex of human beings, resulting in certain qualities and roles being attributed to and internalised by males and females. In other words, certain conceptions concerning what it means to be male as opposed to female are ingested and regurgitated in the beliefs and the behaviour of both men and women. Of course, one is not always consciously aware that one has imbibed and manifested such attitudes. Feminism is, you might recall, not a monolithic discourse: there are in fact several strains as a result of which it might be better to speak of several Feminism s. For Feminists who engage with Psychoanalysis, one’s gender is largely a function of one’s anatomical sex (the strictly Freudian view is that ‘anatomy is destiny’) and / or determined by specific events that occur during the earliest formative stages of a human being’s psychic maturation (this would be the ‘Object-Relations’ view). For psychoanalytic Feminists, the root of patriarchy (a term that reflects the historical fact that men have been dominant over women in all social systems) lies in the biological differences separating men from women. From this perspective, each human forms part of what is sometimes called a kinship system in which one’s place and function in society is determined largely by one’s gender: to be precise, whether or not one is capable of bearing children. For Freudians, moreover, one is not normally conscious that one’s behaviour as a male or female is shaped by these factors. Indeed, our knowledge of such things is said to be repressed as a result of which our psyche is split into conscious and unconscious components. For Feminists who engage with Analytical Psychology, one’s gender is partly a function of anatomy (one is normally biologically either male or female) and partly a product of our socialisation (certain historical patterns of behaviour have led to particular qualities and roles being ascribed to females and males respectively, resulting in the formation of archetypes of masculinity and femininity in the collective unconscious). For Jungians, one is not normally conscious that one’s behaviour as a male or female is to a large extent scripted by the codes inherited via the collective unconscious. However, coming to grips with the contents of the collective unconscious also gives us the opportunity to transcend one’s gender by engaging with archetypes alien to our immediate experience (e.g. the anima in the case of the male) and, through the process of individuation, to attain something of an androgynous state in which the masculine and feminine components of our psyche exist in balance. Although Psychoanalysis is the school of thought that has been most influential upon Feminism, some Feminists prefer to approach questions of gender from a Marxist vantage-point. Marxist Feminists tend to draw upon Marx’s ‘base / superstructure’ model of society in order to argue that gender distinctions are, in a nutshell, entirely a function of economic rather than anatomical or other factors. You might recall that, according to Marx, the social relations of production, the means of production, and the forces of production constitute the economic base of a given society and that this base determines in turn the ideological superstructure. Marxist Feminists contend that, notwithstanding undisputable biological differences, patriarchy (meaning a social system in which men and women are unequal) is rooted in economics: to be precise, the forces of production are so constituted that historically men have largely owned the means of production while women have owned only their labour. From the Marxist point of view, the class-structure is primary and gender differences secondary, men and women being historically differentiated by their relationship to the means of production. To put this another way, the class-structure (i.e. the unequal distribution of wealth) is also a gender-inflected hierarchy, inequality between the sexes being ultimately reducible to economic inequality. This results in a sexual division of labour in which women either are not allowed to work at all (outside of the home, of course) or are confined to certain menial, poorly remunerated tasks in the public sphere. From this perspective, women’s oppression at least since the Renaissance in modern Europe and, by extension, in countries affected by European expansionism during this period is part and parcel of the economic mode of production termed Capitalism. To eliminate the oppression of women, therefore, one must change the economic structure. Marxist Feminists believe that the economic base, gender-inflected in this way, in turn determines the superstructure where are found gendered institutions (for example, in the Church women were historically not allowed to become priests) and often misogynous or at least stereotypical ideologies of gender (i.e. the ideological construction of masculinity and femininity and the respective roles to which they are best suited). The main function of gender ideologies is to
Transcript of Marxist Feminism
8/7/2019 Marxist Feminism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxist-feminism 1/3
1Dr. Richard Clarke LITS2307 Notes11A
MARXIST FEMINISM
Gender is often defined, you might recall, as the social construction of sex, that is, the interpretationsimposed upon the anatomical sex of human beings, resulting in certain qualities and roles being
attributed to and internalised by males and females. In other words, certain conceptions concerningwhat it means to be male as opposed to female are ingested and regurgitated in the beliefs and thebehaviour of both men and women. Of course, one is not always consciously aware that one hasimbibed and manifested such attitudes.
Feminism is, you might recall, not a monolithic discourse: there are in fact several strains asa result of which it might be better to speak of several Feminism s . For Feminists who engage withPsychoanalysis, one’s gender is largely a function of one’s anatomical sex (the strictly Freudian viewis that ‘anatomy is destiny’) and / or determined by specific events that occur during the earliestformative stages of a human being’s psychic maturation (this would be the ‘Object-Relations’ view).For psychoanalytic Feminists, the root of patriarchy (a term that reflects the historical fact that menhave been dominant over women in all social systems) lies in the biological differences separatingmen from women. From this perspective, each human forms part of what is sometimes called akinship system in which one’s place and function in society is determined largely by one’s gender: tobe precise, whether or not one is capable of bearing children. For Freudians, moreover, one is notnormally conscious that one’s behaviour as a male or female is shaped by these factors. Indeed, our knowledge of such things is said to be repressed as a result of which our psyche is split intoconscious and unconscious components.
For Feminists who engage with Analytical Psychology, one’s gender is partly a function of anatomy (one is normally biologically either male or female) and partly a product of our socialisation(certain historical patterns of behaviour have led to particular qualities and roles being ascribed tofemales and males respectively, resulting in the formation of archetypes of masculinity and femininityin the collective unconscious). For Jungians, one is not normally conscious that one’s behaviour as amale or female is to a large extent scripted by the codes inherited via the collective unconscious.However, coming to grips with the contents of the collective unconscious also gives us theopportunity to transcend one’s gender by engaging with archetypes alien to our immediateexperience (e.g. the anima in the case of the male) and, through the process of individuation, toattain something of an androgynous state in which the masculine and feminine components of our psyche exist in balance.
Although Psychoanalysis is the school of thought that has been most influential uponFeminism, some Feminists prefer to approach questions of gender from a Marxist vantage-point.Marxist Feminists tend to draw upon Marx’s ‘base / superstructure’ model of society in order to arguethat gender distinctions are, in a nutshell, entirely a function of economic rather than anatomical or other factors. You might recall that, according to Marx, the social relations of production, the meansof production, and the forces of production constitute the economic base of a given society and thatthis base determines in turn the ideological superstructure. Marxist Feminists contend that,notwithstanding undisputable biological differences, patriarchy (meaning a social system in whichmen and women are unequal) is rooted in economics: to be precise, the forces of production are soconstituted that historically men have largely owned the means of production while women haveowned only their labour. From the Marxist point of view, the class-structure is primary and gender differences secondary, men and women being historically differentiated by their relationship to themeans of production. To put this another way, the class-structure (i.e. the unequal distribution of wealth) is also a gender-inflected hierarchy, inequality between the sexes being ultimately reducibleto economic inequality. This results in a sexual division of labour in which women either are notallowed to work at all (outside of the home, of course) or are confined to certain menial, poorlyremunerated tasks in the public sphere. From this perspective, women’s oppression at least sincethe Renaissance in modern Europe and, by extension, in countries affected by Europeanexpansionism during this period is part and parcel of the economic mode of production termedCapitalism. To eliminate the oppression of women, therefore, one must change the economicstructure.
Marxist Feminists believe that the economic base, gender-inflected in this way, in turndetermines the superstructure where are found gendered institutions (for example, in the Churchwomen were historically not allowed to become priests) and often misogynous or at leaststereotypical ideologies of gender (i.e. the ideological construction of masculinity and femininity andthe respective roles to which they are best suited). The main function of gender ideologies is to
8/7/2019 Marxist Feminism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxist-feminism 2/3
2Dr. Richard Clarke LITS2307 Notes11A
justify discrimination between the sexes in general, the sexual division of labour in particular and, byextension, the oppression of women in general. Given that everything in the superstructure is theeffect or reflection of causes found in the base, for Marxist Feminists, ideas about the respectiveattributes and roles of males and females are entirely determined by those economic factors found in
the base. Hence, the following Marxist Feminist rewriting of the traditional Base/Superstructuremodel:
IDEOLOGICAL SUPERSTRUCTURE
C Ideologies of gender (sometimes misogynous, most often stereotypical)C Social Institutions (which privilege men)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC BASE
C Social Relations of Production (the class structure is also a gender hierarchy)C Forces of Production (sexual division of labour)C Means of Production (owned by men)
Rosemary Tong distinguishes in her useful Feminist Thought: a Comprehensive Introductionbetween (out and out) Marxist Feminists per se and Socialist Feminists who combine Marxist thoughtwith other discourses, most notably Psychoanalysis. The latter, while accepting that the economicdeterminants of patriarchy should not be overlooked, contend that the differences between men andwomen are simply not reducible to economic inequality. They argue that there would be noeconomic differences separating men from women were it not for the sexual differences thatdistinguish the former from the latter. If Marxism is the model best suited to explicating theeconomic stratification of any given society, Socialist Feminists are of the view that it needs to becombined with other schools of thought such as Psychoanalysis which do not ignore the equallyimportant role played by biological differentiation. This is why Socialist Feminists are often calleddual systems theorists.
MARXIST FEMINIST AESTHETICS / CRITICAL THEORY
Marxist Feminists seek to interpret literature written by both women and by men with reference to thesocial relations of production and reproduction specific to the place and time depicted or to the placeand time in which such women wrote. These two sorts of criticism correspond broadly-speaking tothe expressive (where the emphasis is on the writer) and the mimetic (where the focus is on theobject of representation), respectively. In the former (what Feminists like Showalter call‘gynocriticism’), female writers are examined for the economic and related factors which impingeupon their work and which are responsible for their possession (or not) of what those Feminists whomight be influenced by Hartsock might term a feminist standpoint , in other words, a consciousness of the truth about patriarchy . In the latter (what Feminists often term ‘feminist critique’ or ‘images of
women’ criticism), male writers are scrutinised for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of their representation of women in particular and male-female relations.
Marxist Feminist Gynocriticism:Although Hartsock does not have anything to say about literary matters per se, the applicability of her comments to an understanding of feminine authorship ought to be evident. Evidently, not everywoman writer will possess a feminist standpoint. However, whether she does is explicable withreference to her location within the class and patriarchal structure. Some women writers who haveimbibed prevalent stereotypes about women will regurgitate them and thus support the status quo,while others who have for whatever reason succeeded in seeing through them will interrogate andeven subvert them in their works. Such women will be able to offer works that are truly realist,capturing not just the class conflict which drives history but, equally importantly, the link betweenclass conflict and the conflict between the sexes.
To put the foregoing differently, Marxist Feminists seek to explore the socio-historical contextin which a given female writer writes in order to explain what and how she writes. Such critics focus
8/7/2019 Marxist Feminism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxist-feminism 3/3
3Dr. Richard Clarke LITS2307 Notes11A
on both the ideologies of gender and the institutionalisation of gender difference in that society toexplain the writer’s career, subject matter, and choice of literary form(s). These ideologies andinstitutions (part of the Superstructure) are viewed as determined by the means, forces and socialrelations of production in the Economic Base of the society in question. The writer’s ability to
develop a class consciousness and/or feminist standpoint is explained by reference to the sexualdivision of labour, the strength and pervasiveness of the ideologies, and the institutionalisation of gender difference in her society. For Marxist Feminists, unequal gender relations are ultimatelyderived from or determined by unequal economic relations (the class structure). Socialist Feministsseek to extend this framework by contending that the possession of a feminist standpoint by awoman writer is a function not only of her location in the class-structure but in the kinship system, for which reason Marxism should be conjoined with Psychoanalysis.
Marxist Feminist Critique:When studying male writers, Marxist feminist most critics tend to adopt a broadly mimetic approach,the goal of which is to judge whether the writer in question has accurately portrayed women inparticular and male-female relations in general. That is, they read the socio-historical contextportrayed as a reflection of a real place and time inhabited by actual people. They try to explain themotivations impelling the actions of both male and female characters in ultimately economic terms:that is, the ideologies of gender in which the characters are immersed to a greater or less degree andwhich they express or reject both in their actions and words as well as the institutionalisation of gender asymmetry are in the final analysis derived from the economic organisation of the societyportrayed. The accuracy of the depiction is most often explained with reference to those socio-historical factors which have made a writer what he is.
Marxist Feminists are, like Feminists in general, attentive in this regard to the literary construction of femininity in particular. They often focus on how the women portrayed by male writersfrequently fall into one or other of two extreme categories – the sinner / whore and the saint / virgin –in a way that fails to do justice to their true complexity. From the Marxist Feminist perspective, sucha dichotomy is attributable to the stage of history in which the author produced his works. For example, Shakespeare’s works were produced in what Caudwell would describe as the ‘period of primitive accumulation’ of capitalism. At that time, a certain ideology of femininity (‘women ought tobe chaste, silent and obedient’) predominated within the ruling class and was absorbed by the other classes because these were qualities by which propertied men (members of the emergingbourgeoisie) were able to ensure that their wealth was kept within their immediate family and wider class. (It should be borne in mind that notwithstanding the fictional place and time portrayed byShakespeare [e.g. Venice or classical Rome], his plays are in every sense representations of Renaissance England.) Virtuous women are most often praised, wicked women indicted in suchplays. Socialist Feminists , of course, often seek to complicate such purely economistic readings byarguing that an author like Shakespeare was as much a function of his location in the kinship systemas the class-structure of the place and time. To this end, they supplement a Marxist model with aPsychoanalytic one.
