What is Marxist Feminism? Explained

In the previous post we learned about Radical Feminism The genesis of Marxist Feminist philosophy, which is an extension of the theories advanced by Engels, is described in this post. This school of feminist thinking emphasises women's work, the division of labour between men and women in terms of production and reproduction, and unpaid work performed by women. At the end of this post the reader will be able to:

Give an explanation of Engel's work on family and property.
Describe the relationships between production and reproduction.
What theories of gender oppression have Marxists and feminists offered?
Describe how the practise of social work has been impacted by Marxist feminism.

Introduction
Marxist feminist theories

Relations of Production
Relations of Reproduction
Relations of Production and Reproduction: Delhpy and Mitchel

Critique of Marxist Feminism
Marxist Feminism and Social Work
Summary

Introduction

The concept of gender was seen in connection to society as a whole in Marxist philosophy. The concepts of masculinity and femininity are neither categorically necessary nor normative. Roles for men and women follow social norms. These roles represent, communicate, and have an impact on the realities of economic might, social supremacy, and cultural hegemony (Geetha, 2009:52).

We must first comprehend the genesis of some premises in Marxist theory in order to comprehend Marxist feminism. Marx avoided discussing women's oppression explicitly, but his work has given scholars important tools to comprehend the disparity women confront. A significant source for a Marxist theory of the social relations of reproduction was Engels' work (Sayers et al, 1987). The Origin of Family, Property, and the State (1891), in which Engels investigated the emergence of the state and concomitant changes in the family, serves as the foundation for a large portion of the discussion. Engels discussed the history of private property and how it destroyed a communally egalitarian system, giving rise to families as economic units, racial disparities in property ownership, and ultimately, exploitative class societies. A explanation of how women's social status deteriorated as private property became a stronger organising force for society is depicted within this image (Sacks, 1974). There was no surplus production in the early phases of society; all production was done for personal consumption, and all the producing resources belonged to everyone. The husband, wife, and dependent children were neither a productive unit or one for doing housework, and they did not own property, which suggests that they did not fulfil any economic role, so Engels claimed that at this point, the family did not exist. He thought that family had not broken apart from the broader household as a result. The basic social and economic unit, the family, was communist because all food reserves were held in common and all work was performed for the household as a whole rather than for individual members.

Individuals of both sexes owned tools and other personal items thanks to the communal structure of the group's property ownership, which insured that upon death, they were passed on to other members of the tribe or clan of the same sex and not necessarily to their own children. Men's productive work and women's domestic activities were of equal societal importance because private property did not exist. Engels thought that the domestication of large animals as private property converted women from equal members to subordinate wives as a result of the creation of valuable productive resources. Engels believed that property only included items or resources that had the potential to be used for production, such as cultivated fields and domesticated animals.

Private property refers to real estate that is owned by a single person or a family and whose management is vested in the owners. This implied that the items could be sold in order to obtain spouses, customers, or services from others. The development of private property destroyed the communal political economy of the clan and altered not only the political and economic relationships within the greater community but also the relationships between men and women within the family. Instead of working for society anymore, women now work for their husbands, and their labour has evolved into a minor component of creating an exchangeable surplus. They stopped being mature members of society and instead became wards, wives, and daughters (Sacks, 1974:210).

The owner of private property became the head of the household. Families were able to survive over time by passing down property. As a result, how children are defined changed, and the nature of women's reproductive work changed from social to private. According to Engel, patriarchy and the historical defeat of the female sex resulted in a devaluation of female duties, roles, and responsibilities and a subsequent elevation of male positions and functions (Geetha, 2009:59). Sacks (1982) contested the contribution of private property to the decrease of women's status; she connected it to state development and the loss of familial groups' prominence. She claimed that destroying the kin group corporations that served as the foundation for sister relationships further weakened the status of women. Prior to discussing Marxist feminism, it is critical to have a solid understanding of private property ownership because this is a key component of the Marxist case. Women's status in society was determined by what they produced or owned. The work of Bina Agarwal helps us understand ownership of property within the context of India (1994). According to her, it is important to look for connections between gender subordination and property in regard to both private and public property, as well as how property is distributed between families and among men and women, as well as who owns and manages it. Furthermore, neither actual ownership nor control are guaranteed by ownership, nor is gender equality in property ownership rights. The distinctions between ownership and control, as well as between law and practise, are particularly important in the context of gender because most South Asian women face substantial obstacles in realising their legal claims to landed property and in exercising control over any land they do acquire (ibid 1994:12).

Marx also included various notions of production in his analysis of the social structure, other from private property ownership. His fundamental idea that if you possessed the means of production, you belonged to the capitalist class, and if you sold your labour, you belonged to the proletariat, was intended to include women as well. Housewives had no place in the study of capitalism by Marxists. Housewives were included into capitalism's structural order by Marxist feminism. These justifications for the oppression of women by diverse institutions, including the family, were expanded upon by Marxist feminists. They contend that in addition to being oppressed personally, women are also negatively impacted by capitalism and private property systems. They contend that the current capitalist system, in which the majority of women's labour is undervalued, must be completely restructured in order to fully realise women's rights.

Because their unpaid effort in the home keeps bosses and workers alive and generates the next generation of bosses and workers, housewives are essential to capitalism, in fact to any industrial economy (and their future wives). Women's roles include a significant portion of domestic caregiving duties. This involves providing for the needs of the family's children and elders. The woman is typically the one taking care of household duties that are outside the scope of the economy. The majority of women's paid and unpaid work is for the family. Due to this, socialist and Marxist feminisms have harshly condemned the family as a catalyst for the oppression and exploitation of women. They perceived male dominance as a trait of contemporary culture. Marxist feminists connected class oppression to gender inequality. They contend that the reasons why gender inequality is still prevalent are economic and social goals of the ruling class. According to this theory, women's oppression is a result of class oppression and is maintained (like racism) because it serves the interests of capital and the ruling class; it pits men against women, gives working-class men relative advantages within the capitalist system in order to win their support; and it justifies the capitalist class's refusal to pay for the domestic labour that is assigned to women, which is done for free. Some of them, meanwhile, were hesitant to acknowledge patriarchy as a different social structure that coexisted with capitalism. They claimed that, rather than stemming from production relations, women's subordination was a result of particular reproduction relations or was essentially ideological (Rahman & Jackson, 2010). Later in the curriculum, there will be more discussion of Marxist feminism.

Marxist feminist theories

Relations of Production

This group of Marxists concentrated on how capitalism has subordinated women. They contend that because women are paid less, have fewer employment opportunities, and work less frequently than males, they are at a disadvantage in the labour market. Additionally, in addition to their paid employment, they also perform unpaid domestic duties at home ( (Rahman & Jackson, 2010).

In addition to being viewed as "reserve labour," women were employed when necessary, such as during the two world wars, and returned to "domestic work" when the situation changed. Marxist feminists also pushed to make domestic work public, arguing that it serves the existing labour force and raises the next generation of workers, making it essential to capitalism (c.f from Rahman and Jackson, 2010).

Relations of Reproduction

Some Marxist feminists identified reproductive relations as the primary source of women's subordination rather than production. Although they criticised Engel's interpretations, their thoughts were influenced by his work (which is explained in section 1). They claimed that the trading process turned into the cause of women's subjugation. Men interacted with one another through women, requiring them as wives in exchange for their labour. Additionally, women are traded as hostages during battles between various groups of males (Geetha, 2009). They were reduced to their reproductive worth in this way, having first become objects, then losing access to their bodies. were always expelled from their houses following marriage once exchange became the norm. Additionally, as children were viewed as the property of males, childbearing itself became a source of isolation.

These philosophers, in contrast to Engels, thought that patriarchy was a traditional structure that predated private property and monogamy. Women were traded, taken hostage, and raped as methods of restraining female desire. Work, culture, tradition, religion, and education were among the many spheres where this control was institutionalised over time (Geetha, 2009).

Relations of Production and Reproduction: Delhpy and Mitchel

Marxist feminists made the claim that women could only hope to end patriarchy by engaging in the mode of production. The work of some who attempted to examine both production and reproduction relations is shown in this section.

According to Christine Delphy, males consistently take advantage of and profit from women's labour in a home mode of production, and domestic interactions are patriarchal (Delphy, 1976, 1977, 1984). She classified women's sexuality as exploitation of labour. Although women's unpaid domestic work may have benefitted capitalism, Delphy maintained that males rather than the capitalist class were more directly exploited by this labour. Even while a woman's level of living may increase by marriage to a member of the capitalist class, this does not automatically entitle her to membership. The means of production are not owned by her. Her standard of living therefore depends on her serf relations of production with her husband rather than her class ties to the proletariat (Delphy, 1984:71). The head of the family then appropriates a woman's entire being and labour, turning the woman's domestic duties into a "personal service." Due to the lack of a set job description, a set workload, and payment for the work completed, women's domestic labour becomes infinite. This is made more apparent in the case of working women who have enough money to take care of their own maintenance needs but are nevertheless expected to clean the house. She is obviously working for nothing in this situation (Delphy and Leonard, 1992).

When examining the relationships between production and reproduction, Juliet Mitchell made the case that none of them is exclusively to blame for the exploitation and subordination of women. The four-leveled social and economic framework that secures female subordination and male domination is to blame. the following four levels:

Production
Reproduction
Socialization
Sexuality

Mitchell claimed that, in addition to the sexual division of labour, the nature of the work also had an impact on control at the level of production. According to her, women were employed in lower paying, less technologically advanced, and primarily service positions during capitalism. Among others, secretaries, nurses, etc. The educational system, where the majority of courses for women only prepare them for service roles, maintains this cycle. By applying Mitchell's reasoning to the current scenario, it becomes clear that many civil society groups that offered gendered vocational programmes, like as training in tailoring and cosmetics, as part of their rehabilitation programmes have generated a lot of discussion. These frequently entail hard labour for little money. As an alternative, some organisations have begun teaching women to operate businesses and drive, both of which can be more lucrative, changing the change that the relations of production are organised.

Child parenting and child bearing were related to reproduction. The location of manufacturing was family. Where children were raised, socialisation was a key role of the family. Given the burden of responsibility, women increasingly served as the child's primary socializer. Reproduction has supplanted sexuality, and women have very little control over their sexual orientation. Women's ability to manage their sexuality resulted in numerous more restrictions on their movements, relationships, and type of job. According to Mitchell, each of these levels had an impact on gender interactions and changed the standards for what constitutes masculinity and femininity in every given civilization (Geetha, 2009:67). For her, simply allowing women to work would not be enough; instead, they needed to be liberated from forced childbirth, forced childrearing, and sexually unsatisfying relationships.

Critique of Marxist Feminism

Marxist philosophy has come under fire for excluding individual acts of agency. Marxist feminist views occasionally share the same flaw as they disregard human capability and agency. Women actively interact with systems rather than just being passive recipients of what society offers them. Marxist feminists have also come under fire for disregarding female experiences outside of the workplace and emphasising economic class ties too much. Later Marxist feminists like Delphy and Mitchell, who examined both the relations of production and reproduction, partially answered these objections. One of the more recent feminism theories, known as the standpoint theory, was influenced by Marxist theory. According to this theory, feminist social science should be practised from the perspective of women or specific groups of women because, according to some academics (such as Patricia Hill Collins and Dorothy Smith), they are better qualified to comprehend certain facets of the world. They stated that because they offer a different perspective, research must be conducted from the perspective of those with less power (such as the proletariat). Marxist feminist theories, which saw gender interactions in terms of class relations, have contributed significantly to both space and ideology. They have aided in identifying the suffering experienced by women as social issues as opposed to personal ones.

Marxist Feminism and Social Work

According to the Marxist philosophy, social problems are not found in any one person, but rather throughout the entire social system. Beginning with casework with individuals, social work eventually transitioned to working with systems. The statement that "personal is political" is highlighted in the context of Marxist feminism. The oppression of women must be recognised and located within systems as well as within specific households. The feminist approach to social work is predicated on the idea that our patriarchal and oppressive social structure, rather than the problems of clients, is to blame (Berlin & Kravetz, 1981). This strategy is based on the idea that men have advantages in patriarchal cultures, which prevent women from being treated equally (Berlin & Kravetz, 1981; Collins, 1986). Consequently, the objective of this viewpoint is to establish a society where men and women are treated equally (Forte, 2007). Marxist thought is in line with the social work philosophy of the person-in-the-environment, so it is crucial to comprehend a client's social setting when working with them.

Summary

An overview of Marxist feminist views is provided on this blog. It explains how gender is understood in Marxist theory as part of a larger social context. Engel's research on families and the beginnings of private property is briefly discussed. Many Marxist feminists used Engels' theory as their starting point; by analysing his work, they either expanded on his ideas or created new ones. This module demonstrates how a Marxist viewpoint aided in understanding women's positions by highlighting the social relationships between men and women, particularly inside the family. Recent Marxist feminist studies have employed Marxist tools to develop a parallel study of the reproduction of labour power under capitalism without criticising the model or importance of the mode of production as set forth in Capital. These justifications for the way inequities within the family contributed to the oppression of women were expanded upon by Marxist feminists. They are based on the idea that capitalism and private property institutions, rather than just individual oppressive practises against women, are to blame. They contend that the current capitalist system, in which the majority of women's labour is undervalued, must be completely restructured in order to fully realise women's rights. It has also been criticised that the ideology of a total restructuring of the capitalist system is utopian in nature. The work of Mitchell and Delphy demonstrates how, in addition to understanding capitalism, it is equally important to comprehend how patriarchy contributes to the oppression of women. This module will conclude with a discussion of how Marxist feminism has affected social work practise.

Reference

Agarwal, B. (1994). A Field of one's own Gender and Land Rights in South Asia . New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Berlin, S., & Kravetz, D. (1981). Women as victims: A feminist social work perspective. Social Work , 26 (6), 447-449.
Forte, J. (2007). Human Behaviour and the Social Enviornment . Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
Geetha, V. (2002). Gender. Kolkata: Stree.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2009). Doing Gender: The Impact and Future of a Salient Sociological Concept. Gender and Society , 23 (1), 85-88.
Rahman, M., & Jackson, S. (2010). Gender and Sexuality: Sociological Approaches. Cambridge : Polity Press.
Sacks, K. (1974). Engel's Revisited : Women, the Organization of Production and Private Property. In M. Rosaldo, & L. Lamphere, Women, Culture and Society. Standford : Standford Univeristy Press