Conflict between Marxism and Feminism - Essay Example

Political Science College: Background Information Scholars have launched numerous attempts in trying to examine the relationship that exists between gender oppression and class. This study is based on the various historical periods and different societies. Progressive analysts of feminism have over the years based their focus on the relationship that exists between feminism and Marxism. Heidi Hartman had an intervention that got published around thirty years ago. In this Intervention, he pointed to the fact that the relationship that exists between feminism and Marxism is one that is characterized by inequality and extremism. She further asserted to the fact that the relationship that existed between feminism and Marxism is one that is similar. According to me, I think That Marxism was predominantly what made up feminism. This is from a line in her work in which she said, ‘Marxism and feminism are one, and that one is Marxism”. In her opinion, Hartman made it clear that a marriage needed to be healthy, failure of which a divorce was inevitable. The relationship that has existed between feminism and Marxism is characterized by tension. This is because the two theories of Marxism and feminism have an analysis that is radical (Yuval-Davi & Nira, 2006). However, in this article, I intend to bring out the aspect of there being an existence of a ‘healthier’ relationship between feminism and Marxism. There is the need to have a connection between the two divergent views. This is primarily because the Marxism analysis has in itself an analysis that presents insights that are essential in the historical developments vis-à-vis those of capital particularly. Moreover, the arguments and fundamentals of Marxism are blind to sex. There is only a particular feminist analysis that clearly reveals the systematic character that exists between the relationship of man and woman. However, the feminist argument itself has been deemed to be inadequate as it does not consider historical facts and has materials that are inadequate (Brah, Avtar, Phoenix & Ann 2004). Introduction Looking at “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism”, an article by Heidi Hartmann, many questions went through my mind. One is left wondering the relationship that exists between feminism and Marxism. I wondered where these two concepts agree and where they are in conflict. More interesting is looking at Hartmann’s metaphor of “unhappy marriage”, and to try to relate it with Marxism and feminism. The review of Hartmann and that of Rosemarie Tong never convinced me hence the urge and curiosity to explore this further. Studying the works of Marx and his propositions, I felt more push to examine what he stood for and his assertions. Although getting to understand what Marx thoughts and assertions was difficult, the power that existed in his word could not stop me from seeking to understand deeper what he stood for. Moreover, getting to know the meaning of Hartmann’s metaphor of “unhappy marriage” in relation to Marxism and feminism fuelled the urge to continue researching and reading the subject matter (Cho, Crenshaw & McCall, 2013). Marxism and feminism Similar to other metaphors, the Hartmanns marriage metaphor reproduces itself, contaminates its milieu and irradiates outwards. The feminist theory finally picked up the romance and marriage concepts from this idiom. This is in respect to various responses that have been given to the essay by Hartmann. The essay tackles a wide range of issues related to marriage and contains several vocabularies. I will seek to examine the relationship that exists between the metaphor and the arguments given in Marxism and feminism. These prospects date back for the nineteenth century and still have a bearing to date. Marxism presents an argument that is based on a comprehensive society and human theory, characterized by the marginalization of various life aspects and experiences that are traditionally attributed to the women. Feminism bases its views on the social institutions of capitalism and private property in seeking to criticize and explain gender oppression and inequality (Nussbaum, 2000). Marxist feminists believe that an economic inequality is as a result of private properties, struggles between the sexes mooted by domestic and political struggles and dependence. This is seen to eventually lead to the oppression of women in the context of social attention. Marxism puts a heavy attention on the role played by technological and contingent economic states in the determination of the society’s structure. This societal structure leads to a demand that is shaped by the social, religious and political organizations, as well as the legal, governmental, educational and the cultural systems. The Marxist theory is based on materialism hence its materialistic nature. It bases on the fact that both culture and ideas are essential in shaping the history. However, it does not acknowledge the fact that the social change affected by the power of ideas and revolutions that are intellectual based. I view these factors as necessary in the eventual understanding of Heidi Hartmann’s metaphor of “unhappy marriage” in relation to Marxism and feminism. For me to formulate a relationship between the metaphors and build a relationship with both Marxism and feminism, I have to internalize the works of Marx, trace its history concerning what he says with regards to the family and marriage. Moreover, an important aspect to consider in this case is how Marx views gender conflict (Benhabib, 2002). Heidi Hartmann’s metaphor of an “unhappy marriage” The puzzle that has reigned over the years is the treatment of women ant the reason as to why they are discriminated against. Many scholars have tried to dig into finding an answer to the reasons of this mistreatment and lack of equal treatment to the women across all the societies. Relations have been drawn to the capitalist systems of economy and the patriarchy role under capitalism. Heidi Hartmann, in the essay "The Unhappy Marriage of Feminism and Marxism", seeks to shed some light on the subject. There is a plausible and coherent answer given for these questions, and there is an overview given of different views on the same. Hartmann expresses her dissatisfaction and criticizes the views of Marxism, citing that the Marxism theory falls short of explaining the unequal and subordinate position of women in the modern society built on capitalism. However, Hartmann does not oppose the ideals of socialism. Hartmann points to the fact that the problem she finds with Marxism is its blindness to sexes especially in matters that deal with capitalist ideas and wages of the workers. Marxism analyses the society, founding its arguments on matters as exchange value, utility, class, capital, and wage-labor and so on, but in this study, gender is not addressed. This is the main reason as to why Hartmann sees Marxism as lacking some sensibility. Hartmann then builds on the lack of gender address to authoritatively assert that Marxism does not offer any solution or explanation as to why there is subordination of women to men outside the family and inside the family units too (Okin, 1999). Looking at the objection presented by Hartmann, I think it not only applies to the views presented y Marx, but also to the traditional socialist movements, among them the anarchism. Despite the fact that anarchism has tried to provide an analysis that is deeper than that of Marxism, I tend to be of the idea that it still hasn’t answered the criticism posed by Hartmann. This is because the sections of seeking power and hierarchy have not been tied to any of the sexes. In order to expose Marxist inadequacies in explaining sexism, Hartmann focuses on three of the views presented by Marxism that she thinks are representative. She analyses the Fredrick Engels views among other socialists of the 19th century. This is attributed to the inferior status of women in several private properties. A snip view is set on Europe, where human labor was applied in the agricultural areas. The landlords and the male peasants were in control of the lands. This meant that the women and the daughters had no chance of survival unless they got attached to the landlords and the male peasants. This is seen as the start of oppression of the women under capitalism. Capitalism is also traced back to the incident of the peasants who had small lands being sent off their lands. This meant that the peasants had no option other than working for the rising class if they were to earn a living (Mahmood. 2001). The Woman Question and Marxism Hartmann examines a second Marxist view that is based on everyday life and capitalism. I view this argument as a linking factor to the metaphor. This argument is based on the views of Eli Zaretsky, who argues that capitalism tends to equalize the situation of men and women. This view contradicts the previous view of the Engels that I analyzed above. Zaretsky’s focus is on the impact of capitalism in bridging the gap between men and women. Zaretsky observes that both Engels and Marx were optimistic that capitalism had failed to incorporate both sexes into the labor force. Zaretsky argues that while it is true that the men have been subjected to oppression through wage labor, the women have also been oppressed by not being allowed to participate in wage labor. I think this sparks the analysis of Hartmann’s “unhappy marriage” metaphor in relation to Marxism and feminism. Hartmann is quick to point out to the fact that just like the traditional Marxism, Zaretsky has also failed in acknowledging the fact that men get much material benefit from the act of subordinating women and that they are not just capital. Hartmann is clear that, notwithstanding the fact that capitalism has led to the creation of the private sphere, there is still lack of explanation with regards to the reason as to why the women are still working there while men are still in the labor force. Hartmann’s metaphor of the unhappy marriage is evident here. She continues to insist that this view of Marxism cannot be efficiently explained without having to refer to patriarchy, which is the utmost dominance of the males over the females (Shachar, 2007). Hartmann also considers Marxist “wages for housework” view. In interrogating this view, Hartmann examines Dalla Costa’s argument on the same. These views present an argument that is in relation to feminism; hence I think it helps to bridge the relationship between Hartmann’s metaphor of “unhappy marriage” and the prospects of both Marxism and feminism. Costa’s argument is that the women help to build the system that in turn amasses huge profits. The argument presents a fact that there is no need for capital to pay for this labor as it is offered for free by the women. Costa’s work, as earlier stated, had significant contributions to the feminist philosophy. Cost presents a relationship that is not based on men and women, but one that focuses on the women and capital vis-à-vis the realization of the capitalist economy. Similar to Zaretsky, Hartmann agrees with the fact that the work done by women is often seen as being beneficial to the men is overall beneficial to the entire capitalist setting. But, she objects stating that as much as housework is seen as being beneficial to capital, in the end, it is a work done for the men. Consequently, Costa added a new twist to this argument. In fact, it is as it fuels the ‘unhappy marriage’ that already exists. Costa goes ahead to conclude that there should be some pays for the housework done by the women. He proposes that women should not be forced into wage labor that in turn amounts to the women being involved in double jobs. This demand to have housework paid is seen as part of a larger revolt against work. The challenge that comes with wage-work is the fact that it is not easy to break away from. For instance, if one will need some food, a house to live in, clothes to wear among other needs, one has to work and earn (Rowbotham, 2013). Radical Feminism The traditional feminist views on women had a weakness. This weakness was that they never recognized the material advantages that men have apart from the sexism in the systems of present day. These traditional politics on socialism failed to recognize that there was the need of women being independent. The views held by radical feminist are that the basic and original class division exists between different sexes. Further, they view the world order as struggling to elevate the men and make the women become subordinate. Hartmann, however, point out that the feminist theory has many weaknesses. She indicates that the societies that the feminists focus on are those societies that are well known, and that cannot be distinguished. Radical feminism is limited only to the provision of examples of the patriarchy that is found in all places and all times. The Marxists and the politics of anarcho-syndicalist are based on workers’ solidarity against the struggle of capitalism. However, this feminism theory does not bring out the solidarity between women and men. Sexism is viewed as being inherent in men. Various scholars have looked into how this sexism can be eliminated. A majority have pointed to the fact that sexism can only be addressed if women gang up as women and form a class of their own. Despite the fact that this would try to solve the equality issue, there would still be oppression because there is oppression on the working class in the present day. Hartmann in the end agrees with the fact that Marxism is important in allowing us to get an understanding of the different aspects of capitalism and the capitalist society. She, however, holds on to the fact that it fails to clearly explain the reasons as to why women remain to be subordinates to men (Hartmann, 1979). Towards understanding Patriarchy Hartmann views patriarchy as social relations set that exist between men and that are materially based. These relationships are built on a hierarchy form and which create or establish solidarity and interdependence among the men. The interdependence and solidarity eventually enable the men to have domination over the women. In the hierarchy, man has several areas that are different but in the end they get united in dominating over the women. The men’s control of the labor power of women forms the material base of patriarchy. Heidi Hartmann’s metaphor of “unhappy marriage” portrays itself in this circumstance. Men seek to control the access of women to sexuality and resources. In doing so, the men succeed in managing the labor power, hence, making women to rare children and to serve them. This precedent of hierarchy is then passed on the next generation as the women’s inferiority is taught across the society both in and out of the family. Consequently, women are the children, so it is very easy for them to pass on the inferiority to the next generations (Gibson-Graham, 2006). The reproduction of people is seen to be socially instigated as opposed to being biologically determined. It is a social invention that leads to the creation of the two genders and the division of labor. This is defined by the way in which people learn gender, pass on the various social norms, reproduce and meet their sexual desires. Some scholars term this as being an order of sex/gender. Sex/gender is also viewed as being dominated either by a male or the female, or in some instances, it could be dominated by egalitarian. However, Hartmann describes this sex/gender system as only patriarchy. Socialization at any time or in any area is determined by the sex/gender form of the form of economic production. Societies are grouped into two main types of which they become easily understood. There is patriarchal capitalism. Capitalism builds a worker hierarchy; however, it does not determine the location of the workers. Racial hierarchy and gender are the ones that are responsible for determining the individuals who fill in the positions created. Hartmann lists features of modern patriarchy and terms them as being crucial. These aspects include institutions that are based on male social relationships, the state, and the economic dependence of women on men, housework and rearing of children by the females. Homophobia and marriages that is heterosexual. She further points to the fact that both the interdependence on men and the subordination of women is a hierarchy that forms the society’s integral aspect as far as the functioning of the society is involved (Gibson-Graham, 2006b). Relationship between Marxism and patriarchy Oppression of women is seen to be in a dimension in which every woman is categorically or uniquely oppressed by her man. However, Hartmann believes that the oppression of women is an act that takes place systematically. Her argument is that there is no existence of patriarchy in Marxism. In fact, she states that Marxism and patriarchy coexist in a healthy and a very strong partnership. Contrary to this fact, feminism is seen to have an ‘unhappy marriage’ with both Marxism and patriarchy. There exists a conflicting interest between capitalism and men. This conflict emanates from the point of controlling the labor power of women in the society. In seeking to clearly explain this conflict, Hartmann analyzed the historical tensions that existed with respect to the patriarchal relations that are materially based (Davis, 2008). Heidi Hartmann’s metaphor of an “unhappy marriage” characterizing the relationship between Marxism and feminism In the study of the theories of Marxism and feminism, Hartmann observes that the differences in the gender are usually ignored. She further observes that Marxism and feminist have different views, which I think an amount to ‘unhappy marriage’ between the two. Despite the fact that Marxism ignores the gender perspective, feminism can mostly learn from Marxism as far as the matter of male/female relations are concerned. I think Marxism is offering a platform on which both Marxism and feminism can learn from one another. This helps to create a relationship. Marxist analysis presents an insight into law that is essential in the historical developments. The study of materialism explains that patriarchy is not just a simple psychic issue, but the structure of both economic and social characteristics (Crenshaw, 1991). Conclusion It is clear that Hartmann’s metaphor of ‘unhappy marriage’ still characterizes the relationship that exists between Marxism and feminism. It is clear that Marxism and feminism are not monolithic theoretical entities. There have been many relationships that I have found to exist between feminism and Marxism. The relations are, however, based on many conflicts, differences and contradictions. These relationships successfully build that metaphor of ‘unhappy marriage’. The Marxist theories of unproductive or productive work or value are no longer appreciated. The thoughts and assumption of the fact that the socialist order will lead to gender equality are no longer an idea that people believe in. To me, this clearly shows that there had been a loss of interest in the war for equality, especially basing on the Marxists ideas. There is no longer the idea of women being presented, irrespective of their sexual preferences, ethnicity, nationality, race or class, as homogeneous groups that are bound by the so called oppression by men (Breines, 2002) . However, much has not been lost. Feminists in the earlier years fronted for collective work, group discussion and solidarity that were fuelled by the ideals of neoliberal capitalism. The feminism attributed to poverty still has many challenges lying ahead of it with regards to inequality. I have come to learn that the views of Marx are fundamentally based on permanence revolution, philosophy f revolution and humanism. Further, from analyzing Hartmann’s arguments. I have realized that there is an ‘unhappy marriage’ that still exists between those who endear Marxism and those who hold on too feminism. According to me, there is a conflict and misunderstanding between the two factions. Marx focused mainly on the public sphere, ignoring the women’s private sphere of sexual and reproductive concerns. This is the cause of the ‘unhappy marriage’ that exists between Marxism and feminism. References Benhabib, S. ( 2002 ) Is Universalism Ethnocentric in the claims of culture : equality and diversity in the global era . Princeton University Press Brah, Avtar. & Phoenix, Ann (2004). "Aint I a Woman? Revisiting intersectionality." Journal of international womens studies [electronic resource]. 5(3): 75- 86. Breines, W.(2002) "Whats Love Got to Do with It? White Women, Black Women, and Feminism in the Movement Years," Signs. 27(4): 1-095-1133 Cho, Crenshaw, K and McCall, L. (2013). Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications and Praxis. Signs. 38 (4): 785-810. Crenshaw, K. (1991). “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence against Women of Colour.” Stanford Law Review. 43 (6): 1241-1299. Davis, K. (2008): “Intersectionality as Buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful.” Feminist theory., 9 (1): 67-85. Gibson-Graham, J.K (2006a) A post capitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006b) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy (With a New Introduction). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hartmann, Heidi (1979). ‘The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: toward a more progressive union’. Capital & class . 3 (2): 1-33. Mahmood. S. (2001) ‘Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival’ Cultural anthropology. 16/2: 202-236 Nussbaum, M. (2000) ‘In Defense of Universal Values’ in Nussbaum Women and human development : the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press Okin, S. (1999) ‘Is Multiculturalism bad for women? ’ Available online.eg http://www.exclusion.net/images/pdf/89_sanom_Okin_inglese.pdf Rowbotham, S. (2013). Beyond the fragments : feminism and the making of socialism (third edition). Merlin Press. Shachar, A. (2007) ‘Feminism and multiculturalism : mapping the terrain’ In Anthony Simon Laden and David Owen (eds), Multiculturalism and political theory Cambridge University Press: 115-147 Yuval-Davis, Nira. (2006). ‘Intersectionality and Feminist Politics’. The European journal of womens studies. 13 (3): 193-209. Read More