Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://asj.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Acta Sociologica can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://asj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://asj.sagepub.com/content/31/2/157.refs.html
What is This?
In this article I summarize some main points from a larger study which I am
doing on theoretical conceptualization of the formal/equal patriarchy of
today Although I see myself as a socialist feminist, applying historical
materialist method to feminist questions,I am critical of contemporary
socialist feminist theory for not taking the issues raised by radical feminists
seriously enough; for clinging too closely to the specific Marxian prob-
lematique of political economy and class, and for not stating the basic
problem as one of power transactions in the relationship between women
and men as socio-sexual beings My position is that in order to develop a
feminist theory of patriarchy, we must transcend the ’field of knowledge’ of
economy, class and work much more decisively than the socialist feminist
theory of today does We must establish a specific theoretical problematique
( field of knowledge), that of ’political sexuality’, socio-sexual relationship,
and love In doing this we can very well use historical materialism as guiding
threads’ Characterizing patnarchy as a political sex/gender system, the core
of my theory is constructed in terms of a specific sex/gender exploitation,
which is essentially non-economic but social and human-matenal.
we have no control
for we usually do not know
ahead of time
their exact direction
and force
&dquo;
of the movement
.
The onginal, and somewhat different, version of this article was given as a lecture (m
Icelandic)at the first Icelandic Women’s Studies Conference, the University of Iceland.
Reykjavik, 29 August to 1 September 1985 A revised Swedish version was published in the
anthology Femimsm och mar.,rism. En foralskelse med forhl1lder. Stockholm- Arbetarkultur
(1986). The translation into English was done by Jan Teeland. Many thanks to her.
157
’’
and that is .
.
> . ’ > -
- ’
~
’
&dquo; &dquo;
’
~ ’
’
’
~’ ’
&dquo;
from The Impossible by G6ran Sonnevi
’
.
J ; .
.. ~ &dquo; ,&dquo; ,l I
’
’
,
Introduction
For several years I have been working primarily with theoretical studies of the
power relations between the sexes. I have studied patriarchy, or male domination
(the terms are used synonymously) as a social power system.’ My assumption is
that sex/gender - women and men as socio-sexual beings - comprises a particular
material base which generates and shapes history and society.
Certain aspects of the total process of life and society have to do with the fact
that we are sexual beings, driven by desire for and need of one another. These
needs and desires enable us to empower each other as human beings, and to
create others, as individuals and species. These socio-sexual features must be
comprehended in and for themselves; they comprise particular parts of the weaving
together of society as a processual whole. Together with other human necessities,
such as the need for food, shelter and beauty, sexuality creates or constitutes social
life.
How have the relations between women and men become a multi-dimensional
power structure? Certain feminist researchers claim that inequality between the
sexes has always existed, which is not to say that it must remain indefinitely. Others
believe that a systematic and institutionalized inequality and oppression of women
has emerged historically in connection with the development of other inequalities,
mainly those of class.’-2
In addition to the question of the origins of patriarchy, we also have the extremely
important issue of the historical changes in the power relations between the sexes.
Can we distinguish any previous decisive changes in the sex/gender structure of
society? If so, in what ways are they connected to other social changes? Can we
locate any historical roots for the specific form of the sex/gender system that we
live in today in the West? In Sweden? Some see these roots in the rise and
development of industrialism; others say that they must be sought on a different
level and farther back in time. In certain countries a fundamental social trans-
formation occurred long before industrialism. This transformation encompassed
the economy, sexual life, the state, marriage, religion and the law.33
In order to be able to ask the right questions about these changes we must have
at the same time a theory of society as it looks today. How are we to explain the
power relationships between the sexes which can be observed presently in society?
Are there any basic mechanisms in this system that can be described which might
provide a certain perspective on the many different practices through which women
158
working with and the point I have reached - a somewhat more detailed discussion
around the hypotheses or propositions listed above.
159
The American feminist and philosopher Alison Jaggar, has in her recent book
Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1983), reformulated Mitchell’s manifesto, and
m doing so has revealed its most characteristic feature. Jaggar writes:
The analytic approach which I call the third mode is usually referred to as ’socialist
feminism’, or ’feminist historical materialism’. The first expression is particularly
difficult, and as used, vague and unclear. The second expression is much better as
a name for a scientific analytic approach, its main disadvantage being that it is long
and clumsy. Be that as it may, it is this line of thought that I myself tend to
endorse.’3
What then do these feminist theoreticians make of Marxism? I shall try to
summanze what they extract and utilize most.
1. The materialist concept of history views unequal power relations, the oppression
of certain groups of population and whole nationalities as products of history, thus
socially conditioned, and therefore constantly subject to change and possible to
eradicate. Prevailing inequalities and the explottahon of certain groups by others
are seen, in other words, neither as God-given, nor determined by nature, and
161
Thus a special sort of causal connection is presumed to reign between our practical
activities on the one hand, and our attitudes - feelings and ideas - on the other.
One of the most important arguments of women’s studies research is founded upon
this, namely, the theory of the sexual division of work and its consequences. The
fact that women and men live and act to such a great extent in different contexts
must explain much about their differing attitudes, attributes and capacities which
otherwise seem to be so natural. 15
The idea that the practical experiences of bringing up children and caring for
other people does influence our sensibilities is not an invention of our contemporary
women’s movement. In 1612, the father of Western empiricism, Francis Bacon,
wrote on this subject in his essay ’Of Marriage and Single Life’, in which his main
message aimed at dissuading men from marrying and having children since:
He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments
to great enterprises, either of mrtue or mischief. Certamly the best works, and of greatest
ment for the public, have proceeded from the unmarned or childless men, which, both
in affection and means, have mamed and endowed the public.
z
But there are other qualities than the special ’art of human discipline’, that emanate
from a loving co-existence with a wife and children which the philosopher and
politician Bacon would convey to his male readers, provided that they have
ambitions of doing something in the service of the public. Unmarried and childless
men make considerably better soldiers, for instance, not to speak of inquisitors
(’more cruel and hard-hearted’), ’because their tenderness is not so oft called upon’
(italics AGJ).’6
Thus a man of Bacon’s stature has assumed that there is a certain connection
between how often our ’tenderness is called upon’ and how we behave in many
public instances. How we then evaluate the various patterns of behaviour is another
question. Should we prefer the ’discipline’ attained through intimate sympathy and
acts of love? Or shall we, as Bacon advised, value decisiveness and ruthlessness
based on isolation from intimate emotional ties with other people? This is actually
a classic theme in political philosophy, recently taken up in critical feminist schol-
162
4. All feminist researchers who are concerned with historical materialism make
some use or other of its hypothesis of what constitutes the foundations of history
and society. A section from Engel’s Origins of the Family, Private Property and the
State is most often cited:
According to the matenalistic conception, the determmng factor in history is, in the final
instance, the production and reproduction of immediate life. This again is of a two-fold
character: on the one hand, the production of the means of existence, of food, clothing,
and shelter and the tools necessary for that production ; on the other side, the production
of human bemgs themselves, the propagation of the species The social organization
under which the people of a particular historical epoch and a particular country live is
determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labor on the
one hand, and of family on the other [...] 18
The of point three is to explain human consciousness and ideas. Point four
object
concerns the explanation of different social forms and institutions. Socialist feminist
theory can be divided into two main types, depending on which of the two themes
or subjects ( points 3 or 4) one concentrates upon. I would like to begin to address
my own ideas by giving a short presentation and criticism of these two main types
and their variants. I would at this point like to say that I think most feminist theory
which is informed by historical materialism is still too Marxism-fixated and too little
guided by the insights of feminism.
The first type entails a theory of gender construction: i.e. how human beings are
formed into sexually defined social characters - how gender, and above all, how
the ’second sex’ comes about. It is concerned then with the social formation of both
mind and body (cf. note 15). The second type focuses upon society’s socio-economic
processes: production and reproduction, and the position of women in these
processes. z
psychoanalysis and prefer to adapt the recent critical theories of ideology to feminist
ideas. 20 Regardless of whether psychoanalysis or a theory of ideology is used, these
studies tell us a great deal about how women and men are formed into different
sexual characters, how this begins already in infancy in relations with parents, and
how society’s ideological forces form us into the sexual beings we are for the
duration of our lives. But these studies do not focus on what must compose the
crux of any theory of male authority which, as I see it, is the relations between man
and woman and women and men. The issues pmpointed are how psycho-social man
and woman as individuals are ’born’ during childhood, or how adult masculinity
163
165
’
’
’ ’
&dquo;&dquo;
The sexual struggle today
I would claim that in our type of society neither women’s economic dependence
upon men nor the unequal division of work between the sexes constitute the pivotal
point in men’s continuing ability to maintain and regenerate their dominance over
women and in society at large. The crux of the problem lies on the level of existential
sexual needs, which are materially and socially formed, and basically not economic.
The activities which the sexual struggle revolve around are neither work nor the
products of work, but human love - caring and ecstasy - and the products of these
activities: we ourselves, living women and men with all our needs and all our
potentials.
My assertion should not be taken to mean that I think the extremely unequal
economic relations between women and men (e.g. most women having double jobs)
is meaningless or scientifically and politically uninteresting. However, I still maintain
that the weight of the social forces which shape our possibilities in life as women
and men are historically shifting, and that this weight has now shifted to the sexual
relationship itself, which has become central in the way it was not when our
chains were directly formalized and perfectly visible in laws, or fixed in almost
insurmountable economic obstacles.
To test my hypothesis empirically may well seem very difficult if not impossible;
yet I do not think it is in principle more difficult than any other empirical testing.
However, so far there are not many systematic studies to turn to for support; at
present, descriptions of reality in this area are more or less restricted to fiction. 24
One way to test my hypothesis would be to study power positions in couple
relationships in which both parties are fairly equal professionally and also share
domestic tasks relatively equally. My argument would suggest that it is highly
probable that the man nevertheless appropriates an unproportionally large amount
of the woman’s caring and love, both directly and through any eventual children;
and also that in reality, in most cases, it is the man who decides the prerequisites
or conditions for living together. All this does not necessarily mean that the man
is the stronger half if the relationship breaks down, but the man normally finds
himself a new partner much faster than the woman in a parallel situation - for this
there are quite clear figures.
When I argue that the core of male domination now lies in the sexual relationship
itself I am referring not only to intimate couple relationships in a marriage or
cohabitation, but also to a similar unequal exchange of care and pleasure which
occurs between men and women in other contexts - in work, within politics, etc.,
viz individuals and groups.
i ; -4
. ~ ~ r
legitimate freedom to take for themselves. Thus men can continually appropriate
significantly more of women’s life force and capacity than they themselves give
back to women. Men can build themselves up as powerful social beings and continue
to dominate women through their constant accumulation of the existential forces
taken and received from women. 21 If capital is accumulated alienated labor,
male authority is accumulated alienated love. Exactly how this works can vary
greatly in both individuals and different social classes, but this variation does not
invalidate the theory. The problem is an empirical one, i.e. the theory must be
anchored in studies of how these sexual processes vary. And such testing must be
done with the help of more concrete models.
Equally, a theory of gender cannot be proffered as a logical consequence of
a theory of class. Gender differences must be seen as empirical and historical
167
~ .
&dquo;
opposition when we want to increase our influence, especially if we hide the fact
that we are women as much as possible. It is mainly when we demand authority as
female human beings that opposition arises - ’women’s voices are not appropriate
for the pulpit’ according to one argument against female clergy in a Swedish
investigation a few decades ago.
’
participation. 30 The large gender difference in participation in the political elite and
in society’s organs of power are, as is known, particularly striking. But in those
instances where the focus of study has been the absence of women in the organs of
power, and/or when present, their difficulties in asserting themselves, little energy
has gone to explaining the problem. (In general, the explanatory variables, or
rather, the social contexts of political behaviour, regardless of whether they refer
to choice of political party, views on political questions or participation in decision-
making bodies, are often a weak link in modern political science research.) The
last 15 or 20 years of feminist research has prepared the ground for the disappearance
of indifference to gender problems and the frequent frivolous attitudes to questions
that are raised.
The above sketch of an explanation of our society’s gender-political structuring
constitutes an example of the type of basic theory formation that has up to now
been very rare in modern political science. ’Who/is, does and/gets what, when and
how’ in the ’authoritative allocation of valued things’ is in fact decided on several
different levels, and in gender-structured, class-structured, and other ’fields of
action’. ~’
Aristotle, one of the mentors of Western political thought, explained and legi-
timized sexual hierarchy in society by using the image of light and beautiful male
seminal fluid carrying society’s higher formative sensibilities (with some men higher
169
. &dquo; .
!:.,
,-
., _ ;. = .1.
Notes
1 The terminological and conceptual problems of patriarchy are discussed in more detail in
A. G. Jónasdóttir (1984), pp. 115 ff. The problems include the question whether’patriarchy’
can be used as a term for present-day male domination or if it should be confined to father-
domination prevailing in the past. G. Rubin (1975), for example, prefers the latter as does
E. Fox-Genovese (1982). The radical feminists like Kate Millet (1970) launched the
expression ’patnarchy’ at the end of the 1960s, giving it a new significance, i e roughly,
the social dominance of men over women and in comparison with women. Another
problem concerns whether the systematic character and the relative autonomy which
’patriarchy’ confers to male dominance and the oppression of women are theoretically and
empirically justifiable This is a point made by increasing numbers of feminist researchers
who accept the concept, while others, e g. M Barrett (1980). reject the concept of
patriarchy on just these grounds.
2 Re differences of opinion about the origins of patriarchy, or as I have termed it, the
anthropological question, cf. Jónasdóttir, op. cit., pp. 129-134.
3 For a closer reading of the historical question concerning patriarchy, see ibid., pp. 134-
140.
4 The theoretical issue is dealt with in ibid , pp 140 ff.
5 Ibid., pp. 114 ff. and pp. 129 ff.; comp. notes 1-4 above.
6 With the question ’Why has the sex/gender system become visible only now?’ Sandra
Harding ( 1983) underlines the gender system’s historical changeability and its uniqueness
today, and suggests that its specific visibility today is due to the women’s movement’s
’discovery’ of a particular femist perspective.
7 Mitchell (1971), pp. 86.
8 In all academic subjects criticism has resulted in a number of books and articles. I would
only mention here a few examples from political science and political sociology of works
which are either wholly or in part critical of the subject: K Boals (1975); S Bourque/J.
Grossholtz (1974); B. Caroll (1979) and (1980); D Dahlerup (1974); J B Elshtain (1974);
J. Evans (1980); M Goot/E Reid (1975); B Halsaa-Albrektsen (1977); G Hedlund-
Ruth/A. Jónasdóttir (1981); J. Jaquette, ed., (1974); J. Lovenduski (1981); M. Shanley/
V. Schuck (1975).
9 Friedan (1963); de Beauvoir (1949/1972).
10 Re Parson’s work, see especially Essays in Sociological Theory (1954) and Parsons/Bales,
Family Socialization and Interaction Process (1956). For a feminist critique of Parsons,
see e.g. Mitchell, op. cit., pp. 104 ff.; A. M. Berg (1977); V. Beechey (1978).
170
171
172
173
174