sign in sign up
<<
Home , Sexual Politics, Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex

Review: ,

Madeleine Johansson

wax. What she was doing was much more dangerous.’1

Firestone attempts to analyse in-depth the nature of sexual oppression and its ori- gins, in order to argue for the possibility of feminist revolution and how this can be achieved. Her analysis, she claims, is based on the Marxist method of dialectics, up- dated through the use of Freudian theory. The book also deals with the oppression of children, and a possible future so- ciety. She has some great and thought- provoking insights, particularly in the chap- ter on childhood. The book was a signif- icant contribution to radical and has remained very influential until this day. Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex Verso 2015 £9.99 Compared to the mainstream liberal femi- nism of today, Shulamith Firestone’s work is a breath of fresh air arguing for a com- The re-publication of the feminist clas- plete destruction of ’’ and capital- sic by Shulamith Firestone is very timely, ism. There are, however, serious flaws to now that we are experiencing another wave her method and conclusions as well as some of feminism sweeping the globe with a whole fairly disturbing notions regarding sexuality. new generation of young women taking an Before moving on to the main review, it’s interest in feminist issues. The book was important to highlight the context Firestone first published in 1970 and was described as was writing in. The social movements in the follows by in 1960’s inspired the growth of the far left in in 2014 in her obituary to Firestone: the US, as well as women’s organisations and black civil rights groups. This ‘New Left’ in- Dialectic was both lauded and cluded a mixed bag of student groups, anar- excoriated, often in the same re- chists and hippies, and many of its leaders view; the Times called its au- were influenced by Maoism. But, by 1970, thor ‘brilliant’ and ‘preposter- this alliance of anti-establishment forces be- ous.’ It was ridiculed on talk gan to break apart with some being involved shows as it climbed the best- in terrorism (The Weathermen) while others seller list, and was cast as ‘the moved to the right towards the Democratic little red book for women’ while Party. Many young women who had got in- it was changing world views in volved with the ‘New Left’ came up against un-red female America. Millett, appalling , and when they began to whose book ap- question this type of behaviour they were peared the same year as Dialec- dismissed and vilified.2 One of these women tic, told me, ‘I was taking on the was Shulamith Firestone, who at the age of obvious male chauvinists. Shulie 22 proposed resolutions on women’s rights was taking on the whole ball of at the 1967 ‘National Conference for a New 1http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary?currentPage=all accessed 24/05/15 2http://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2014/05/29/breaking-away-to-come-back-new-left- sexism-radical-feminism/, accessed 24/06/15

67 Politics’ in Chicago and was literally given a In one sentence she argues ‘[b]efore we ‘pat on the head’ and completely dismissed.3 can act to change a situation, however, we A few years later she was forced off a stage must know how it has arisen and evolved, to howls of verbal sexist abuse. Not sur- and through what institutions it now oper- prisingly, Firestone turned her back on the ates. Engels’‘[We must] examine the historic left and instead went on to co-found a num- succession of events from which the antag- ber of radical feminist organisations, such onism has sprung in order to discover the as the and New York Radical conditions thus created the means of end- Women. The appalling attitude of the left ing the conflict’5.Here she appears to be ad- and their inability to take feminist issues se- vocating for a historical materialist analytic riously, led Firestone to reject much of left- method but she then goes on to argue that ist ideas and Marxism. So whilst I make ‘[t]he division yin and yang pervades all cul- quite harsh criticism of Firestone’s work I ture, history, economics, nature itself; mod- have sympathy for her and the path which ern Western versions of sex discrimination led her to writing it. are only the most recent layer6’ completely contradicting her earlier statement. Fire- Firestone’s method stone argue that we need to look at history and the historical development of oppression At the very outset of the book Firestone but then asserts that sexual oppression is not claims to stand in the tradition of Marx historical but rather biological, existing even utilising his dialectical method. However in the animal kingdom and therefore cannot she immediately rejects the very foundation be explained by looking at history. of Marx’s dialectic - . Historical materialism is the basis of Marx- She completely rejects Engels’ theory of ism, and it means that we understand that the development of hierarchy in his the world actually exists and is not just The Origin of the Family, Private Property in our heads (materialism), and that soci- and the State where he links it to the rise ety changes and develops throughout his- of class society. Since the publication of tory. Firestone partially admits this, and The Dialectic of Sex a significant amount of even at certain points in the book argues research has been conducted by anthropol- this strongly. However she also rejects his- ogists such as Eleanor Burke Leacock and torical materialism in favour of a Freudian Christine Ward Gailey proving the correct- idealism combined with a crude biological ness of Engels’ general argument. Unfortu- determinism. She argues that: nately at the time of writing, none of this research would have been available to Fire- ...we are dealing with a larger stone. Instead, Firestone argues that sex- problem, with an oppression ual oppression stems only from the biologi- that goes back beyond recorded cal difference between male and female ie the history to the animal kingdom it- female’s ability to bear children. ‘These bi- self. In creating such an analysis ological contingencies of the human family we can learn a lot from Marx and cannot be covered over by anthropological Engels: not their literal opinions sophistries. Anyone observing animals mat- about women - about the condi- ing, reproducing, and caring for their young tion of women as an oppressed will have a hard time accepting the ’cultural class they know next to nothing, relativity’ line.’7 Not only does she neglect recognizing it only where it over- anthropological studies of early human so- laps with economics - but rather cieties in one sentence, but she also disre- their analytic method.’4 gards the difference between human beings 3http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary, accessed 24/06/15 4The Dialectic of Sex, Shulamith Firestone, Verso books 2015 5ibid 6ibid 7ibid

68 and animals; the key difference being the so- from Venus’. According to Firestone, and cial nature of human beings and our ability actually most misogynists too, gender roles to shape and change nature. are a consequence of biology and hormones, rather than society. I have shown above how she rejects the Despite this biological determinism historical aspect of historical materialism (combined with Freudian idealism), which but then she also goes on to reject the ma- can often lead to a pessimism regarding the terialist aspect when she says: ‘There is a ability to defeat oppression because if op- level of reality that does not stem from eco- pression comes from biology then we would nomics... reality is psycho-sexual...’8 The have to change our biology to achieve free- crude biological determinism which leads to dom. Firestone argues that ‘...the precon- an ahistorical understanding of sexual op- ditions for feminist revolution exist-indeed, pression goes hand in hand with the idealism the situation is beginning to demand such a of Freudianism - the theory that human be- revolution.’12 This at least gives the book a ings’ emotions and psyche, formed by sexual sense of hope and possibility which at times repression, creates power-structures (and is refreshing. I will discuss her vision for subsequently oppression) in society. Her bi- a feminist revolution and a future society ological determinism is evident throughout later. the book, particularly in her discussions of love, culture and science where she among other things argue ‘That men can’t love. A history of the women’s move- (Male hormones?? Women traditionally ex- ment pect and accept an emotional invalidism in them that they would find intolerable in a Firestone’s book attempts to deal with a woman.)’9 She also claims that ‘...we can broad range of issues around feminism, sex- hardly find a relationship of women to sci- uality and oppression and she also outlines ence worthy of discussion’10 apparently be- the history of the women’s movement and its cause ‘...the empirical method specifically various components. She correctly criticises demands the exclusion of the scientist’s per- many of the conservative feminists through- sonality from his research.’11 Firestone ar- out history and argues that their ‘stress on gues that this is because women are more equality with men - legal, economic, etc., engaged with emotions and therefore are un- within the given system - rather than liber- able to use ‘cold’ scientific methods. Her ation from sex roles altogether..’ is not only first statement about the supposed ‘non- useless in terms of achieving real results in existence’ of women scientists is simply fac- the here and now, but also that it will never tually incorrect, you only need to look at go to the heart of the problem. She further the work of Marie Curie or Lise Meitner outlines how the early suffragette movement who invented nuclear fission as examples of only achieved their aim, winning the vote for extraordinary talented female scientists.The women, following the involvement of radi- second statement once again comes from her cal feminists taking militant actions.13 Then theory of the biological origin of oppres- follows a brief history of the movement from sion, or recently the more common expres- the eroticism of the ‘Roaring Twenties’ with sion that ‘Men are from Mars - Women are the re-popularisation of marriage to the War 8ibid 9ibid 10ibid 11ibid 12ibid 13‘Militants had to undergo embarrassment, mobbings, beatings, even hunger strikes with forced feeding, but within a decade the vote was won. The spark of was just what the languishing suffrage movement needed to push their single issue.’ 14‘In the twenties eroticism came in big. The gradual blurring together of romance with the institution of marriage began (‘Love and marriage... go together like a horse and carriage...’), serving to repopularize and reinforce the failing institution...’

69 effort and women in the factories up until the ‘Oedipus Complex’ comes from the Ancient 1960’s.14 However, throughout this fairly in- Greek story where Oedipus kills his father teresting description of events, there is some- and marries his mother.) The Electra Com- thing glaringly missing: the class struggle. plex, on the other hand, relates to the female In her attempt to divorce sexual oppression child, who first identifies with her mother, from economics, Firestone completely omits then develops sexual desire for her father, the working class struggles and their influ- together with a longing for the freedom of ence on the women’s movements. She puts the father, but in the end she has to repress down the winning of the vote for women to her sexual desires and accept her inferior po- the involvement of radical feminists, rather sition together with her mother. than seeing it as a result of a period of work- Not only is this theory problematic in ing class revolutions and revolts, in conjunc- the sense that it attempts to explain some- tion with a women’s movement, in the pe- thing that has its origins in society through riod following the First World War. Her individual experience in the family, but it only reference to the enormous changes to also has some more disturbing consequences, women’s lives in the early period just fol- particularly in relation to . lowing the revolution in Russia is where she She says: ‘Homosexuality is only what hap- says that ‘...Russia at this time was exper- pens when these repressions don’t take as 15 imenting at doing away with the family.’ ought to - that is, rather than being thor- But no mention of the working class revolu- oughly suppressed, allowing the individual tion that made this ‘experimenting’ possible to at least function in society, they remain in the first place. on the surface, seriously crippling that in- dividual’s sexual relationships, or even his 17 Freudianism total psyche’. It would seem possible that her intention here is to show how or why It is the chapter on Freud and Freudianism homosexuality has been (and still is, but that is the most important and the most to a lesser extent) vilified by society, how- problematic in the book. Here Firestone ever further on her real argument becomes outlines her main theoretical framework for more clear. She goes on: ‘male homo- the understanding of sexual oppression; the sexuality could result from the refusal by ‘patriarchal family’ and the sexual repres- the child at five or six to make the transi- sion that comes with it. She takes Freud’s tion from ‘mother-centeredness’ to ‘father- theory of the Oedipus and Electra Com- centeredness’ - often from a genuine love for plexes in children and uses it to explain sex- the mother and a real contempt for the fa- ual oppression. ther.’18 And later she writes: ‘Homosexuals The Oedipus Complex basically relates in our time are only the extreme casualties to the male child, where his first loyalty (and of the system of obstructed sexuality that identification) is to his mother in his shared develops in the family.’19 Her opinion re- oppression (by the hands of the father) with veals itself in that statement, where the log- her, but he eventually develops sexual desire ical conclusion is that following the break- for the mother (as the closest female), which down of the ‘patriarchal’ family and the fem- has to be repressed, and as he becomes an inist revolution, homosexuality would disap- adult he must leave behind his shared op- pear since it is a result of the ‘misfiring’ of pression, develop a disdain for her (and all this sexual repression in the family. Another women’s) inferiority and take on the oppres- statement confirms this: ‘...the incest taboo sor role of the father (the man).16 (The term and the resulting Oedipus and Electra Com- 15ibid 16‘It is no wonder that such a transition leaves an emotional residue, a ‘complex’. The male child, in order to save his own hide, has had to abandon and betray his mother and join ranks with her oppressor. He feels guilty.’ 17ibid 18ibid 19ibid

70 plexes, and their common misfiring into sex- ily today has changed, with a large num- ual malfunctioning, or, in severe cases, into ber of lone parent families as well as same- what is now sexual deviation.’20 Her lan- sex parents, it still serves the purpose of re- guage describing homosexuality such as ‘ca- producing the next generation of workers as sualties’, ‘sexual malfunctioning’ and ‘devia- cheaply as possible. Only at specific periods tion’ can’t be regarded as anything less than of economic growth, such as the Post-War homophobic, as is her very conclusion. boom, have we seen any changes in relation Her attempt in this chapter is obvi- to the role of the family, such as free child- ously to uncover the underlying reason for care and communal facilities. Hence the ide- the repression of sexuality which took place ology of ‘marriage, 2.5 children and a mort- mainly from the Victorian Era up until re- gage’ still serves as the norm which we all cent times, much of which is being eroded (including same-sex couples) should strive today (and instead being replaced by a for. As Firestone correctly remarks: ‘To- commodification of sex). However, once day this contract based on divided roles has again, her ahistorical method and Freudian- been so disguised by sentiment that it goes ism leads her to find the origins of oppression completely by millions of newly-weds, and 21 in the family, but not in the family as a social even by most older married couples.’ structure shaped by the needs of the capi- However, Marxists also understand that talist system, but instead in an individual’s the family can be a place of refuge for the psyche, leading her to a very disturbing, and worker. It is the only place where she/he ultimately unhelpful, analysis of sexual op- can feel some sense of control over her/his pression. life -since this control has been removed from the public life of the workplace there is an Instead, the Marxist explanation for sex- attempt to assert this control in the private ual repression, including the vilification and life of the family. Unfortunately, the family criminalisation of homosexuality, lies in the can never live up to the glorified myth but role of the family as the main place of repro- instead becomes both a ‘haven and a hell’ as duction of the current and next generation Marx described it. of workers under capitalism. In the nine- teenth century, following industrialisation, working class families began to change with Childhood women and children taking part in factory The chapter on childhood was very interest- work. This led to a situation where high in- ing, possibly because many of her points and fant mortality, extremely low life expectancy arguments were new to me. Firestone be- and young men and women working collec- gins by stating that ‘... we will be unable tively in the factories began to break down to speak of the liberation of women with- the ’traditional’ family structures. In order out also discussing the liberation of children, to ensure the existence of a future workforce and - vice versa’22. She argues that chil- as well as a stable social structure, the ’fam- dren are oppressed within the modern fam- ily wage’ was introduced as a way to take ily in a way which they were not in the past. women and children out of the factories. It In addition, she argues that the very con- also served the purpose of reinforcing the cept of childhood did not exist until very re- myth of traditional gender roles, the passiv- cently. She writes: ‘In the Middle Ages there ity and caring role of the woman as house- was no such thing as childhood. The me- wife and the aggressive and assertive role of dieval view of children was profoundly differ- the man, and this sexist ruling class ideology ent from ours.’23 And goes on to argue that that came with it. ‘Children were so little differentiated from Despite the fact that the form of the fam- adults that there was no special vocabulary 20ibid 21ibid 22ibid 23ibid 24ibid

71 to describe them: they shared the vocabu- argues that “Discipline’ was the keynote to lary of feudal subordination...’24 modern schooling, much more important fi- The reason behind this non-existence of nally than the imparting of learning or in- the concept of childhood is two-fold; the first formation.’28 Basic schooling for working- being that children generally took part in class children became necessary to instil dis- the same labour as adults (mainly light agri- cipline in the future workforce, as well as to cultural work). Secondly, children took part teach the minimum skills required for fac- in the same daily life as adults as part of a tory work. Firestone argues that ‘As a re- larger extended family household, they were sult they (children) remained economically not separated off into schools or ‘childcare dependent for longer periods of time; thus facilities’ nor cared for solely by their own family ties remained unbroken.’29 parents.25 She makes some interesting parallels be- This led to a different relationship be- tween the oppression of women and of chil- tween parents and children, where ‘...they dren, remarking on the belittling of women ... did not ‘need’ their children - certainly as children in sexist language, as noted in children were not doted upon. For in addi- the passage further up. She also argues later tion to the infant mortality rate... parents that ‘The pseudo-emancipation of children reared other people’s children for adult life. exactly parallels the pseudo-emancipation of And because households were so large, filled women: though we have abolished all the with many genuine servants as well as a con- superficial signs of oppression... there is no stant troupe of visitors, friends and clients, a question that the myth of childhood is flour- child’s dependence on, or even contact with, ishing in epic proportions, twentieth cen- any specific parent was limited...’26 tury style... special toys, games, baby food, So rather than childhood being some- breakfast food, children’s books and comic thing natural, Firestone argues that: ‘The books, candy with child appeal etc.’30 If this concept of childhood developed as an ad- was true in 1970 it is even more so today. junct to the modern family. A vocabulary But today it is not enough to separate chil- to describe children and childhood was ar- dren from adults in terms of commodities, ticulated.. (Since then it has been expanded but then there has been a further separation into an art and a way of life. There are all of children between the with gen- kinds of modern refinements on baby talk: dered toys, clothes and even sweets. Fire- some people never go without it, using it stone remarks on this commodity fetishism especially on their girlfriends, whom they but offers no explanation for it, nor does treat as grown-up children)’27 So the mod- she make any links to the capitalist system’s ern notion of childhood arose only with the constant need for new consumer markets in development of capitalism. It was only in order to increase profitmaking. the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that However, Firestone goes on to touch on special clothing for children were invented, something crucial in terms of understanding as well as particular ’children’s games’. Pre- the family, and childhood, under capitalism; viously, games would have been played by the role played by alienation. She says that adults and children alike. ‘...the key word to the understanding of mod- In addition, with the development of a ern childhood is happiness’31 and that ‘...it is working class tied to the factory, a level every parent’s duty to give his child a child- of discipline was required in order to keep hood to remember... This is the Golden Age machinery going round the clock as well as that the child will remember when he grows to increase productivity. Firestone correctly up to become a robot like his father. So ev- 25‘...children were never segregated off into special quarters, schools or activities.’ 26ibid 27ibid 28ibid 29ibid 30ibid 31ibid

72 ery father tries to give his son whatever it from the biological division of male/female? was he missed most himself in what should She argues that modern technology for the have been a most glorious stage of his own first time in history gives us the tools to life.’32 free ourselves from biology through artifi- Under capitalism childhood has become cial reproduction (i.e. test-tube babies) and glorified as our only chance of freedom and contraception. This is one of the reasons, Firestone rightly says: ‘In a culture of alien- she argues, that revolutions in the past have ated people, the belief that everyone has at failed.35 This new reproductive technology, least one good period in life free of care and she says, will enable humans to remove the drudgery dies hard. And obviously you can’t need for and parenthood, leading expect it in old age.’33 Though she articu- to the destruction of the ‘patriarchal family’ lates some understanding of the role of alien- and even capitalism itself (which, accord- ation she never delves deeper into the sub- ing to her, is a result of the sex division) to ject, nor does she attempt to give a reason an age of ‘cybernetic communism’. Machin- for the existence of it. ery and technology can not only liberate hu- So whilst (partly) understanding the rea- mankind from the monotony of labour but son for this glorification of childhood by also from the pain and misery of adults, she firmly argues for the necessity and child-rearing. to free children from this myth and allows them to take part in society on an equal ba- Conclusion sis. Pre-empting the accusation of her sup- porting child labour she argues that ‘[w]hat One would have to admire Firestone’s at- we ought to be protesting, rather than that tempt to analyse the origins of oppression children are being exploited just like adults, and her courage to write her theories, which is that adults can be so exploited. We need at the time must have seemed even more to start talking not about sparing children outrageous than they do today. But as a for a few years from the horrors of adult life, Marxist, I have several problems with this but about eliminating those horrors. In a so- book, both in terms of underlying homopho- ciety free of exploitation, children could be bia and racism (the latter a topic which I like adults... and adults like children...’34 had no space to deal with in this review) but more importantly Firestone’s flawed method The future based on a crude biological determinism mixed with a load of Freudian nonsense. It is At times it would seem that Firestone was this ahistorical method, based on an upside- really a socialist; that she wanted to see a down understanding of the relationship be- world free from exploitation and oppression. tween class and gender - the argument that However, her theory and her method lead the ‘sex division’ came first and class devel- her down a quite bizarre path with regards oped as a consequence out of this36 - that to how what she terms a ‘feminist revolu- ultimately is the cause of the seriously prob- tion’ would happen and what type of society lematic conclusions. Though one can under- would come in its place. stand her frustrations with her contempo- As I explained in the introduction, de- rary American so-called Marxists and revo- spite her biological determinism Firestone is lutionaries, with their Stalinism and sexism, optimistic regarding the possibility of a femi- but her dismissal of Marxism ends up being nist revolution. How could this be possible if detrimental to her attempts at understand- her very argument is that oppression comes ing oppression and its origins. 32ibid 33ibid 34ibid 35‘We shall soon have a triplicate set of preconditions for revolution, the absence of which is responsible for the failure of revolutions of the past.’ 36‘just as we have assumed the biological division of the sexes for procreation to be the fundamental ‘nat- ural’ duality from which grows all further division into classes, so we now assume the sex division to be the root of this basic cultural division as well.’

73 74