Throughout the history of political philosophy, women have rarely been considered a relevant political category worthy of serious intellectual or theoretical imagination. Even when this huge gap was pointed out, it was understood as no more than a ‘trivial oversight’ that could be remedied by some superfluous changes in the language and form of theoretical endeavor. The social inequalities based on sex were thought of as having little significance to ‘grand’ philosophical projects about the Man and Progress. In contrast, feminist theory’s primary task is to bring women at the centre of all political analysis as concrete social beings. Hence, the theoretical task of feminism is closely interlinked to its political practice, which aims at transforming all existing social relations and institutions. Given the range of experiences of women as well as differing conceptions of human society, there are a large number of strands within feminist theory and practice. These include such diverse ideas as liberal feminism, socialist feminism, dalit feminism, radical feminism, black feminism, its variants inspired by the ‘post’ turn, etc. Although each of these variants energizes women’s struggles in different ways, the focus of this essay is on feminist theorization that draws its inspiration from Marxist philosophy. Frederich Engels’ The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State marked one of the most radical departures from conventional understandings on issues of patriarchy and women’s subordination to men.
Inspired by the aforementioned work as well as their experiences in revolutionary Russia, feminists such as Alexandra Kollontai have had an enormous influence on feminist thought and practice. She, as we know, was writing against the backdrop of early 20th century Russia, which was characterized by scarcity, inflation and unemployment. Given this, the fate of women seemed inescapably linked with the issue of class. In fact, a strike by women workers in Petrograd was a major triggering point for the February Revolution. Thus, mobilization of working class women was of fundamental significance to the socialist cause. However, unlike orthodox Marxism which relegated the women’s question to the domain of the superstructure, feminists like Kollontai made a case for a degree of ‘super-structural autonomy’. She argued that the economic base and its ideological superstructure are also in a dialectical relationship and that the latter is not a passive reflection of the former. In doing so, Kollontai demonstrated the recognition that the task of building a socialist society would not be about macro variables alone – it was important to also politicize and reinvent what was conveniently invisibilized as the ‘personal’. Although Kollontai herself was increasingly marginalized from the Party due to her radical insights and the tight leash of Stalin, her influence in anticipating socialist feminism of the 1960s cannot be underestimated.
In theoretical terms, socialist feminism can be understood as an attempt at fusing insights from radical feminism with the traditional Marxist method of analysis. It accepts the radical feminist assertion that sexual activity, child bearing and child rearing are characterized by unequal power relations and should therefore be subject to political analysis. However, it rejects the assumption that these practices are biologically determined. Instead, borrowing from Marxist tradition, socialist feminists argue that the manner in which these activities are organized is inescapably linked with class and ethnic differences. To paraphrase it in Marxist vocabulary, socialist feminism focuses on the dialectical relationship between sex and society as it appears through activity organized along gendered norms.
Even though Marx and Engels indicated these connections between procreation and production, the orthodox interpretations did not explore the creative possibilities contained therein. Instead, they blindly accepted the ‘commonsensical’ notions of sexuality that understood it as being a fixed attribute of human beings, bereft of any real implications for power structures in a society. Thus, despite theoretical possibilities that may have pointed otherwise, sexuality was relegated to the ‘naturally ordained’ non-political realm. Even if it was recognized as a debatable issue, it was accorded a subordinate position to class and was therefore made a ‘secondary contradiction’ that would automatically be taken care of as part of the class struggle.
But with socialist feminism of the late 20th century, there began a more nuanced and complicated analysis of patriarchy and the myriad aspects of oppression and exploitation of women. It was argued that questions of patriarchy and capitalism could not be simply collapsed into one another, and that the present conditions were that of capitalist patriarchy. Hence, feminist politics is as crucial as the anti-capitalist struggle towards the creation of a just and free society.
By deploying a historical-materialist understanding to comprehend all aspects of society, sexuality is accorded its rightful place at par with the material domain. Indeed, both procreation and production now constitute the base. Rather than being a natural attribute that remains unchanged throughout the changing material conditions and production processes, sexuality is to be understood as socially constructed and hence dynamically evolving with material changes. Its changing nature needs to studied through different historical epochs and the present form needs to be understood as affected by and affecting capitalism. The two, in fact, are to be recognized as inseparable.
Having traced the historical lineage and theoretical implications of socialist feminism, let us bring this discussion to a close by reflecting on the avatars of patriarchy today. Whether it is caste panchayats dictating who to love or to television ads educating us about the ‘21st century girl’ who, curiously, must conform to set norms of occupation, beauty and aspirations, the aforementioned linkages between production and procreation are more than evident. Thus, the theoretical connections explored above have a ubiquitous presence in our lives. Given this, a genuinely emancipatory political project cannot but acknowledge them, and an egalitarian social order can only be achieved by fighting the demons of capitalism and patriarchy simultaneously.
Ardra, Research Scholar, CPS/JNU
No comments:
Post a Comment