Heather A. Brown, Marx on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study. Brill Academic Publishers 2012. Pbk Haymarket Books 2013.
|
RATING: 50
|
Buy this book?
|
No
|
This is a frustrating book. Although the claims made by the author to cover all Marx's work on gender and to deal with his theory as a totality are exaggerated in the first instance and unfounded in the second, it is still a useful and fairly comprehensive chronological survey, with some original material on ethnology from 1879-82 notebooks. It is about gender and the family rather than social reproduction, though this is discussed in passing, and it follows in significant respects the work of Raya Dunayavskaya in particular. Its primary theoretical point of reference is (loosely) Marx's theory of alienation: there is no consideration of surplus value, or the labour theory of value, or of 'relations between men and women mediated by their relations to the conditions of production and reproduction' (Gimenez, 2005: 18). Brown's starting point is that 'Although Marx did not write a great deal on gender and the family, and did not develop a systematic theory of gender, it was for him, nonetheless, an essential category for understanding the division of labour, production, and society in general' (3), and she goes on from there to suggest that 'there are potential openings within Marx's overall theory of society that may be amenable to a feminist interpretation', so that 'although he never fully developed these ideas, [he] gave important indications towards a theory of gender and society' (3-4). It's one thing, and arguably acceptable, to say that Marx gives important indications towards a theory of gender and society', another entirely, and arguably plain wrong, to say that gender was an essential category for him. A similar slippage occurs later, when passages from the 1844 Manuscripts are first said to point out 'the necessity of women's full liberation and equality with men as a prerequisite to a truly socialist society' (they don't), with the qualification immediately following that they point 'strongly in this direction' (35), which, arguably again, they might. Then, preliminary to a later discussion of Capital, she dilutes the claim even further, arguing that Marx's categories 'provide resources for feminist theory, or, at least, areas for new dialogue at a time when Marx's critique of capital is coming to the fore once again' (70). This in turn becomes the substance of the conclusion. Add to this that virtually every time that Brown identifies resources available in Marx for a theory of gender and society she describes them as being in an undeveloped form (4, 53, 70), or even absent but capable of development ('while Marx did not directly challenge the .. man/woman dualism, the same logic could potentially be applied', p. 64), and the case being made seems weak even on its own terms. She adds, for good measure, that 'Marx himself was probably not all that interested in understanding [the] relationships [of human reproduction] in the private sphere' (attributing to Marx in the process a concept he did not use), but concludes that 'Marx's lack of interest in human reproduction should not deter us from exploring these issues within his own framework' (74-5). The danger in proposing to develop a theory of gender and society from Marx that proceeds by looking at what he said about it directly, without grounding it in the substance of his critique of political economy, is that in doing so one might abstract away from the specificity of capitalist society, and produce a theory that is not Marxist at all, whatever other merits it might have. I think Brown falls into this trap.
After a brief introductory chapter anchored by Dunayavskaya's claim that Marx emphasised 'uprooting all forms of oppression, including gender-oppression' (8), Chapter Two discusses early writings, in debate with Christine Di Stefano and Claudia Leeb, and drawing briefly on Nancy Holmstrom's superb 1984 article, which is essential reading. Brown concludes sensibly that Marx saw humanity and nature as dialectically related, but she does not ground her analysis, as Holmstrom does, in differing forms of human (in this case, male and female) labour, where 'the type of labor people do puts them into certain social relations, and these relations are institutionalized into sets of practices, institutions, cultural agencies, and so on' (ibid: 464). Brown does show that Marx was thoughtful with regard to gender relations, remarked frequently on the alienation and exploitation of woman in capitalist society in the 1844 Manuscripts, the Holy Family, the German Ideology and a less widely known 'review essay' on suicide published in 1846 (44-48), took an historical rather than essentialist view of the family, and saw the bourgeois family in particular as an oppressive structure in which women and children were the slaves of men, but she does not relate these attitudes and judgements to his analysis of capitalist social production.
It is in the third chapter, however, as the title 'Political Economy, Gender, and the Transformation of the Family' (52-98) suggests, that issues most relevant to this website emerge. Unfortunately, it is also the weakest chapter. Brown begins by stating that 'in the Communist Manifesto and Capital, Marx begins to integrate the discussion of gender and the family into those parts of his work that contain more explicit discussions of political economy,' and claims that 'Marx did not see women's oppression as separate or secondary to the maintenance of the capitalist system' (52-3). This formulation distorts as much as it reveals. Elsewhere she draws on Gimenez (2005) in general terms. But she does not consider or adopt the suggestion that: 'Production subordinates reproduction to itself because, whether or not individuals have access to the necessary conditions for reproduction (employment with a wage or salary sufficient to support parents and children) shapes their reproductive strategies and their outcome' (ibid: 21; cf. the excellent Picchio, 1992). As a result, she does not progress beyond the idea that Marx 'sees production and reproduction as a dialectically-related whole' (73). So while she discusses some but not all of the relevant content of Capital (primarily from Chapters 10 and 15), and the descriptive content is useful, she is too often drawn into speculation about what Marx might have thought or could have gone on to say, or into reproof of moral judgements he offered.
The remaining chapters have much the same character. Chapter Four on Marx's journalism and political activities shows him mindful of the significance of women workers, and committed in the 1880 programme of the French Parti Ouvrier to the abolition of all articles of the Code Napoléon 'establishing the inferiority of the worker in relation to the boss, and of woman in relation to man' (131). Chapters Five and Six, on Marx's notes on the ethnological work of Morgan, Maine and others in the closing years of his life show him studying in depth the varied circumstances and trajectories of change in community and family structures and gender relations in a wide range of pre-capitalist societies, but as Brown is dealing in large part with marginal notes and interjections, there are limits to what one can deduce regarding what Marx might have said in a fully developed work of his own.
All in all, the book succeeds in giving an initial insight into the range of contexts in which Marx addressed themes relating to gender and the family. But what is missing is a critique of those terms, along with others such as 'women's work'. In her conclusion, Brown remarks that in various of his writings, 'Marx, at least tentatively, began to discuss the interdependent relationship between class and gender without fundamentally privileging either in his analysis' (220). But this is 'Marx' stripped of the critique of political economy, and enlisted in the cause of an untheoretical and pluralist intersectionality, and it is not at all clear what contribution such a reading of Marx can make.
References
Gimenez, Martha, 2005. 'Capitalism and the Oppression of Women Revisited', Science & Society, 69, 1, 11-32.
Holmstrom, Nancy, 1984. 'A Marxist Theory of Women's Nature', Ethics, 94, 3, 456-473.
Picchio, Antonella, 1992. Social Reproduction: The Political Economy of the Labour Market.
After a brief introductory chapter anchored by Dunayavskaya's claim that Marx emphasised 'uprooting all forms of oppression, including gender-oppression' (8), Chapter Two discusses early writings, in debate with Christine Di Stefano and Claudia Leeb, and drawing briefly on Nancy Holmstrom's superb 1984 article, which is essential reading. Brown concludes sensibly that Marx saw humanity and nature as dialectically related, but she does not ground her analysis, as Holmstrom does, in differing forms of human (in this case, male and female) labour, where 'the type of labor people do puts them into certain social relations, and these relations are institutionalized into sets of practices, institutions, cultural agencies, and so on' (ibid: 464). Brown does show that Marx was thoughtful with regard to gender relations, remarked frequently on the alienation and exploitation of woman in capitalist society in the 1844 Manuscripts, the Holy Family, the German Ideology and a less widely known 'review essay' on suicide published in 1846 (44-48), took an historical rather than essentialist view of the family, and saw the bourgeois family in particular as an oppressive structure in which women and children were the slaves of men, but she does not relate these attitudes and judgements to his analysis of capitalist social production.
It is in the third chapter, however, as the title 'Political Economy, Gender, and the Transformation of the Family' (52-98) suggests, that issues most relevant to this website emerge. Unfortunately, it is also the weakest chapter. Brown begins by stating that 'in the Communist Manifesto and Capital, Marx begins to integrate the discussion of gender and the family into those parts of his work that contain more explicit discussions of political economy,' and claims that 'Marx did not see women's oppression as separate or secondary to the maintenance of the capitalist system' (52-3). This formulation distorts as much as it reveals. Elsewhere she draws on Gimenez (2005) in general terms. But she does not consider or adopt the suggestion that: 'Production subordinates reproduction to itself because, whether or not individuals have access to the necessary conditions for reproduction (employment with a wage or salary sufficient to support parents and children) shapes their reproductive strategies and their outcome' (ibid: 21; cf. the excellent Picchio, 1992). As a result, she does not progress beyond the idea that Marx 'sees production and reproduction as a dialectically-related whole' (73). So while she discusses some but not all of the relevant content of Capital (primarily from Chapters 10 and 15), and the descriptive content is useful, she is too often drawn into speculation about what Marx might have thought or could have gone on to say, or into reproof of moral judgements he offered.
The remaining chapters have much the same character. Chapter Four on Marx's journalism and political activities shows him mindful of the significance of women workers, and committed in the 1880 programme of the French Parti Ouvrier to the abolition of all articles of the Code Napoléon 'establishing the inferiority of the worker in relation to the boss, and of woman in relation to man' (131). Chapters Five and Six, on Marx's notes on the ethnological work of Morgan, Maine and others in the closing years of his life show him studying in depth the varied circumstances and trajectories of change in community and family structures and gender relations in a wide range of pre-capitalist societies, but as Brown is dealing in large part with marginal notes and interjections, there are limits to what one can deduce regarding what Marx might have said in a fully developed work of his own.
All in all, the book succeeds in giving an initial insight into the range of contexts in which Marx addressed themes relating to gender and the family. But what is missing is a critique of those terms, along with others such as 'women's work'. In her conclusion, Brown remarks that in various of his writings, 'Marx, at least tentatively, began to discuss the interdependent relationship between class and gender without fundamentally privileging either in his analysis' (220). But this is 'Marx' stripped of the critique of political economy, and enlisted in the cause of an untheoretical and pluralist intersectionality, and it is not at all clear what contribution such a reading of Marx can make.
References
Gimenez, Martha, 2005. 'Capitalism and the Oppression of Women Revisited', Science & Society, 69, 1, 11-32.
Holmstrom, Nancy, 1984. 'A Marxist Theory of Women's Nature', Ethics, 94, 3, 456-473.
Picchio, Antonella, 1992. Social Reproduction: The Political Economy of the Labour Market.