Materialist feminism
Part of a series on |
Feminism |
---|
Feminism portal |
This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2023) |
Materialist feminism is a theoretical current of radical feminism that was formed around the French magazine Questions féministes. It is characterized by the use of conceptual tools from Marxism to theorize patriarchy and its abolition.
Materialist feminism understands sex and gender as social constructs that are produced through the reproductive exploitation and sexual subordination of women.[1] Its body of literature includes an analysis of women's work within marriage and in the formal economy, criticism of other streams of feminism, deconstruction of sexuality and advocacy for an autonomous women's movement.
Jennifer Wicke defines materialist feminism as "a feminism that insists on examining the material conditions under which social arrangements, including those of gender hierarchy, develop... materialist feminism avoids seeing this gender hierarchy as the effect of a singular... patriarchy and instead gauges the web of social and psychic relations that make up a material, historical moment".[2] She states that "...materialist feminism argues that material conditions of all sorts play a vital role in the social production of gender and assays the different ways in which women collaborate and participate in these productions".[2]
History
The term materialist feminism emerged in the late 1970s and is associated with key thinkers such as Christine Delphy, Colette Guillaumin, Nicole-Claude Mathieu, and Monique Wittig.[3]
Material feminism partly originated from the work of French feminists, particularly Christine Delphy. At the time of the coining of the term, Delphy was actually criticized by other feminists. Since Materialist feminism was so close to Marxism, but did not actually submit to Marxist text; many other's saw this branch as unnecessary due to not being Marxist enough[citation needed]. However, after the 1980s, most modern feminism began to branch away from focusing on physical oppression and instead started to focus more on the language of oppression.[3]
The Grand Domestic Revolution by Dolores Hayden is a reference. Hayden describes material feminism at that time as reconceptualizing the relationship between the private household space and public space by presenting collective options to take the "burden" off women in regard to housework, cooking, and other traditional female domestic jobs.[4]
There was a cultural turn during the 1990s that moved to push the boundaries of what the category of "woman" was. As feminism became postfeminism, the notion of femininity was "problematized, rather than taken as a given" as told by Stevi Jackson.[3] As feminists stopped seeing women as a social hierarchy and instead a sexual division, the concept of materialist feminism began to fade further and further away.[citation needed] Similarly, as discourse turned to the specifics of what defined a woman, the roles and physical oppressions they faced became of less importance.[citation needed] This was partly due to the notion that feminism had achieved what it set out to do. That women got the equality, and now it was time to focus on intersectionality.
Relationship to Marxist feminism
Marxist feminism is focused on investigating and explaining the ways in which women are oppressed through systems of capitalism and private property. As stated previously, materialist feminism was developed as an improvement upon Marxism, as it was felt that Marxist feminism failed to address division of labor, especially in the household. The current concept has its roots in socialist and Marxist feminism; Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham, who are editors of Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference, and Women's Lives, describe material feminism as the "conjuncture of several discourses—historical materialism, Marxist and radical feminism, as well as postmodernist and psychoanalytic theories of meaning and subjectivity".
Theory
Christine Delphy affirms that materialism is the only theory of history that views oppression as a basic reality of women's lives, which is why women (and other oppressed groups) need materialism to investigate their situation.[5] For her, "to start from oppression defines a materialist approach, oppression is a materialist concept".[5]
However, the Marxist distinction between production and reproduction is harshly criticized.[6] For materialist feminists, constructing a theory of patriarchy that reduces women's work to reproduction ends up reaffirming the patriarchal ideology.[6] Delphy theorizes two modes of production in our society: industrial and domestic. The first mode allows for capitalist exploitation, while the second allows for familial and patriarchal exploitation.[7] She argues that the domestic mode of production is the material basis of the oppression of women, and that marriage is a labor contract that gives men the right to exploit women.[5]
Materialist feminists reject that women's oppression is due to any biological nature or metaphysical essence. Rather, it is thought of as purely social, and the categories “men" and "women" are consequential.
Criticism
The relationship between materialism and feminism has been described as "problematic" and regarded as an "unhappy couple".[10] There has also been a concern for the general ambiguity of materialist feminism. It has been called to question whether the differentiation between materialist feminism and Marxist feminism is great enough to be a worthwhile contribution to feminist theory.[11]
Christine Delphy's contributions to materialist feminism have also been the subject of criticism, for example by Michèle Barrett and
However, the main criticism for materialist feminism involves the lack of
Stevi Jackson calls concern towards the recent resurgence of materialist interest, stating that many of the new ideas were reducing the material to capitalist ideas, and that "this might bring us full circle back to the least productive forms of 1970s Marxism".[3]
In recent years, materialist feminist thoughts have attempted to focus on transnational issues. Scholars consider a global economic change in relation to the feminization of poverty. Feminist scholars are also working to create a transnational feminist agenda. For example, Hennessy analyzes grassroots organizations in four maquiladora communities along Mexico's northern border. The research claims that the global nature of patriarchy and capitalism sustains a "political economy of sex".[14]
Leading figures
- Christine Delphy
- Colette Guillaumin
- Rosemary Hennessy
- Stevi Jackson
- Diana Leonard
- Nicole-Claude Mathieu
- Monique Plaza
- Paola Tabet
- Monique Wittig
See also
- Double burden
- Economic materialism
- Feminist economics
- Feminist metaphysics
- Feminist urbanism
- Social construction of gender
- Sally Haslanger
References
- .
- ^ ISBN 978-0-8223-1460-8.
- ^ .
- ISBN 978-0-415-92088-9.
- ^ ISSN 0141-7789.
- ^ ISBN 978-2-84950-738-4.
- ^ JSTOR 1394753.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-203-64625-0
- ISSN 0154-9960.
- JSTOR 490122.
- ^ Martha E. Gimenez (2000). "What's material about materialist feminism?". Radical Philosophy. Retrieved 2017-10-10.
- ISBN 9780415079099.
- ISSN 0950-236X.
- ISSN 1464-7001.