What’s material about materialist ? A Marxist Feminist critique

Martha E. Gimenez

In the heady days of the Womenʼs Liberation Move- in theorizing and research; though, to my knowledge, ment, it was possible to identify four main currents theorizing about it remains at the level of metaphors within feminist thought: Liberal (concerned with (e.g. interweaving, interaction, interconnection). attaining economic and political equality within the I was, therefore, very interested to read, a few years context of capitalism); Radical (focused on men and ago, a call for papers for a volume on Materialist as the main causes of the of Feminism (MatFem). The description of MatFem put women); Socialist (critical of capitalism and Marxism, forward by the editors, Chrys Ingraham and Rosemary so much so that avoidance of Marxismʼs alleged Hennessy, was to me indistinguishable from Marxist reductionisms resulted in dual systems theories postu- Feminism (MarxFem). This seemed such a promising lating various forms of interaction between capitalism development in that I proceeded to and patriarchy); and (a theoretical invite the editors to join me in creating an electronic position held by relatively few feminists in the USA discussion list on , MatFem – myself included – which sought to develop the (http: //csf.colorado.edu/matfem). Initially, I thought potential of Marxist theory to understand the capitalist that MatFem was simply another way of referring to sources of the oppression of women). MarxFem, but I was mistaken; the two are distinct These are, of course, oversimplified descriptions forms of feminist theorizing. There are, however, such of a rich and complex body of literature; however, similarities between them in some feministsʼ work they reflected important theoretical, political and that some degree of confusion between the two is to social cleavages among women that continue to this be expected. day. Divisions in feminist thought multiplied as the In this article, I will identify the differences between effects of poststructuralist and postmodern theorizing these two important currents within feminist theory, emerged alongside grassroots challenges to a feminism and the reasons for the return of feminist appeals perceived as the expression of the needs and concerns to at a time when the theoretical shift of middle- and upper-middle-class white ʻFirst Worldʼ towards idealism and contingency seems hegemonic in women. In the process, the subject of feminism became the academy. Given the conflicting views that coexist increasingly difficult to define. The postmodern crit- under the materialist cover, I will argue for a clear ique of ʻwomanʼ as an essentialist category, together break between Materialist and Marxist , and with critiques grounded in sexual preference, racial, for a return to the latter necessitated by the devastating ethnic and national origin differences, resulted in a effects of capitalism on women and the consequent seemingly never-ending proliferation of ʻsubject pos- political importance of a theoretically adequate analy- itionsʼ, ʻidentitiesʼ and ʻvoicesʼ. Cultural and identity sis of the causes of their plight. politics replaced the early focus on capitalism and (among Marxist Feminists primarily) class divisions What is Materialist Feminism? among women. Today class has been reduced to another ʻismʼ – that is, to another form of oppression To define MatFem is not an easy task. Theorists who which, together with and race, integrates a sort self-identify as Materialist or as Marxist Feminists of mantra, something that everyone ought to include differ in their understanding of what these labels

18 Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) mean and, consequently, the kind of knowledges they Other feminists, for different reasons, would also produce. Depending on their theoretical allegiances disagree with Vogelʼs interpretation. For Toril Moi and and self-understanding, feminists may differ in their Janice Radway, for example, the relationship between classification of other feministsʼ works, so that clear and MatFem is ʻfar from clearʼ.8 lines of theoretical demarcation between and within As editors of a special issue of The South Atlantic these two umbrella terms are somewhat difficult to Quarterly dedicated to this topic, they do not offer a establish. Take, for example, Lise Vogelʼs work.1 I theory or a clear definition of the term. Presumably, always considered Vogel a Marxist Feminist because, the issueʼs content will give the reader the elements unlike Socialist Feminists (whose avoidance of Marxʼs necessary to define the term for herself, because all alleged reductionisms led them to postulate ahistorical the authors ʻshare a commitment to concrete historical theories of patriarchy),2 she took Marxism seriously and cultural analysis, and to feminism understood as 9 and her analysis of reproduction as a basis for the an “emancipatory narrative”.ʼ One of these authors, oppression of women is firmly grounded within the Jennifer Wicke, defines MatFem as follows: Marxist tradition. However, the subtitle of her recent a feminism that insists on examining the material book (a collection of previously published essays), conditions under which social arrangements, includ- is ʻEssays for a Materialist Feminismʼ. Self-identify- ing those of gender hierarchy, develop … materialist ing as a Socialist Feminist, she states that Socialist feminism avoids seeing this [gender hierarchy] as the effect of a singular … patriarchy and instead Feminists ʻsought to replace the socialist traditionʼs gauges the web of social and psychic relations that theorizing about the question with a “material- make up a material, historical moment; … mate- ist” understanding of womenʼs oppressionʼ.3 This is rialist feminism argues that material conditions of certainly news to me: Socialist Feminismʼs rejection all sorts play a vital role in the social production of Marxʼs and Marxismʼs ʻreductionismʼ led to the of gender and assays the different ways in which women collaborate and participate in these produc- deliberate effort to ground ʻpatriarchyʼ outside the tions … there are areas of material interest in the mode of production and consequently – from the fact that women can bear children.… Materialist standpoint of Marxist theory – outside history. Mate- feminism … is less likely than social construction- rialism, Vogel tells us, was used to highlight the key ism to be embarrassed by the occasional material 10 role of production – including domestic production – in importance of sex differences. determining the conditions leading to the oppression of Insistence on the importance of material conditions; women. Materialism was also used as ʻa flagʼ, to situate material historical moments as a complex of social Socialist Feminism within feminist thought and within relations which include and influence gender hierarchy; the Left; Materialist Feminism, Vogel argues, cannot the materiality of the body and its sexual, reproductive therefore be reduced to a trend in cultural studies, as and other biological functions: these remain, however, 4 some literary critics would prefer. But wasnʼt Engelsʼs abstract pronouncements which unavoidably lead to 5 analysis materialist? And didnʼt Marxist Feminists an empiricist focus on the immediately given. There 6 7 (Margaret Benston and Peggy Morton come to mind) is no theory of history, of social relations or of the explore the ways production – public and domestic production of gender hierarchies that could give guid- – oppressed and exploited women? ance about the meaning of whatever is observed in a These brief comments about Vogelʼs understanding given ʻmaterial historical momentʼ. of MatFem highlight some of its problematic aspects Donna Landry and Gerald Maclean, authors of as a term intended to identify a specific trend within Materialist Feminisms,11 tell us that theirs is a book feminist theory. It can blur, as it does in this instance, ʻabout feminism and Marxismʼ, examining the debates the qualitative differences that existed and continue to between feminism and Marxism in the USA and Britain exist between Socialist Feminism, the dominant strand and exploring the implications of those debates for of feminist thought in the USA during the late 1960s literary and cultural theory. The terrain of those early and 1970s, and the marginalized Marxist Feminism. debates, which were aimed at a possible integration I am not imputing such motivations to Lise Vogel; I or synthesis between Marxism and feminism, shifted am simply pointing out the effects of such an inter- due to the emergence of identity politics, concern with pretation of US Socialist Feminism, which, despite postcolonialism, sexuality, race, nationalism, and so the use of Marxist terms and references to capitalism, on, and the impact of and poststruc- developed theoretically as a sort of feminist abstract turalism. The new terrain has to do with the ʻconstruc- negation of Marxism. tion of a materialist analysis of culture informed by

Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) 19 and responsive to the concerns of women, as well as under the variety of feminist theories produced on people of colour and other marginalized groupsʼ.12 For both sides of the Atlantic since the late 1960s? Does Landry and Maclean, MatFem is a reference to ʻmaterial conditionsʼ in general or to ʻthe material conditions of the oppression of womenʼ suffice critical reading practice … the critical investigation, as a basis for constructing a new theoretical frame- or reading in the strong sense, of the artifacts of culture and social history, including literary and ar- work, qualitatively different from MarxFem? If so, tistic texts, archival documents, and works of theory how? The authors argue that feminist theories focused … [it is] a potential site of political contestation exclusively on gender and dual systems theories that through critique, not through the constant reitera- bring together gender and class analysis face meth- tion of home-truths … a deconstructive materialist odological and political problems that ʻdeconstructive feminist perspective.13 reading practices can help solveʼ; they propose ʻthe But what, precisely, does materialist mean in this articulation of discontinuous movements, materialism context? What theory of history and what politics and feminism, an articulation that takes the political inform this critique? Although they define materialism claims of deconstruction seriously … deconstruction 18 in a philosophical and moral sense, and bring up the as tool of political critiqueʼ. But isnʼt the linking difference between mechanical or ʻvulgarʼ materialism between deconstruction and Marxism what gives it its and historical materialism, there is no definition of what critical edge? It is in their conclusion that the authors, materialism means when linked to feminism. Cultural aiming to demonstrate that materialism is not an alias materialism, as developed in Raymond Williamsʼs for Marxism, outline the difference between MarxFem work, is presented as a remedy for or supplement and MatFem as follows: to Marxʼs historical materialism. There is, accord- Marxist feminism holds class contradictions and ing to Williams, an ʻindissoluble connection between class analysis central, and has tried various ways of material production, political and cultural institutions working an analysis of gender oppression around and activity, and consciousness.… Language is practi- this central contradiction. In addition to class cal consciousness, a way of thinking and acting in the contradictions and contradictions within gender ide- world that has material consequences.14 Williams, they ology … we are arguing that materialist feminism should recognize as material other contradictions point out, ʻstrives to put human subjects as agents of as well. These contradictions also have histories, 15 culture back into materialist debateʼ. operate in ideologies, and are grounded in material The implications of these statements is that ʻhumans bases and effects … they should be granted material as agents of cultureʼ are not present in historical weight in social and literary analysis calling itself materialism and that Marxʼs views on the relationship materialist … these categories would include … ide- between material conditions, language and conscious- ologies of race, sexuality, imperialism and colonial- ism and anthropocentrism, with their accompanying ness are insufficient. But anyone familiar with Marxʼs radical critiques.19 work would reject this view. In fact, it is Marx who wrote that ʻlanguage is practical consciousnessʼ and While this is helpful in understanding what con- posited language as the matter that burdens ʻspiritʼ temporary self-identified materialist feminists mean from the very start, for consciousness is always and when they refer to MatFem, it does not shed light from the very first a social product.16 on the meaning of material base, material effect, Landry and Maclean present an account of the and material weight. The main concept, materiality, development of feminist thought from the late 1960s remains undefined; at times it seems to mean real or to the present, divided into three moments: the objective (e.g. gender and race are as real as class), or encounters and debates between Marxism and femi- central – meaning determinant, having causal effects nism in Britain and the USA; the institutionalization (e.g. ideologies are just as central or have as much and commodification of feminism; and ʻdeconstructive ʻmaterial weightʼ as class). Underlying these ideas materialist feminismʼ. These are ʻthree moments of lurk the spectres of ʻclass reductionismʼ and ʻeconomic materialist feminismʼ:17 a very interesting statement determinismʼ, a stereotypical understanding of Marx that suggests that MatFem – a rather problematic and and the Marxist tradition used to argue for the supe- elusive concept which reflects, in my view, postmodern riority of claims defined, essentially, as their abstract sensibilities about culture and about the subject of negation. Also lurking are Althusserʼs20 views on the feminism – had always been there, from the very materiality of ideology, now expanded to analyse all beginning, just waiting to be discovered. Is that really forms of oppression and oppositional identities, but the case? If so, what is this materialism that lurked with a crucial difference. While for Althusser the level

20 Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) of production and, consequently, the contradictions nists who preferred the term Materialist Feminism to between capital and labour and between the forces Marxist Feminism because, in their view, Marxism and relations of production are determinant ʻin the had to be transformed to be able to explain the sexual last instanceʼ, albeit ʻoverdeterminedʼ and rendered division of labour.22 In the 1970s, Hennessy states, historically specific and active by the characteristics Marxism was inadequate to the task because of its of concrete social formations,21 Materialist Feminism class bias and focus on production, while feminism appears to rest upon the unsupported claim that there was also problematic due to its essentialist and idealist is no hierarchy of causality: all other forms of inequal- concept of woman. This is why MatFem emerged as a 23 ity besides class, and its corresponding ideologies, are positive alternative to both Marxism and feminism. equally ʻmaterialʼ, meaning they are not only equally The combined effects of the postmodern critique of the real and important but also equal in their causal empirical self and the criticisms voiced by women who did not see themselves included in the generic woman powers. Such a conclusion might be politically satisfy- subject of academic feminist theorizing resulted, in ing, but it rests upon a functional notion of causality the 1990s, in Materialist Feminist analyses that ʻprob- according to which all institutions or elements of the lematize “woman” as an obvious and homogeneous social system mutually interact and affect each other, empirical entity in order to explore how “woman” and none is ʻmoreʼ causally efficacious than any others as a discursive category is historically constructed – that is, none can set parameters for the conditions of and traversed by more than one differential axisʼ.24 possibility and development of the others. And what Furthermore, Hennessy argues, despite the postmodern is the nature of the other ʻcontradictionsʼ material- rejection of totalities and theoretical analyses of social ist feminists should recognize? Contradiction is not systems, Materialist Feminists need to hold on to the equivalent to conflict, for conflicts can be resolved critique of the totalities that affect womenʼs lives: within a given system of relations, whereas contradic- patriarchy and capitalism. Womenʼs lives are every- tion can be resolved solely through qualitative social where affected by world capitalism and patriarchy, and change. Finally, references to ideologies, exploita- it would be politically self-defeating to replace that tion, imperialism, oppression, colonialism, and so on, critique with localized, fragmented political strategies confirm precisely that which the authors intended to and a perception of social reality as characterized by dispel: materialism would seem to be an alias for a logic of contingency. Marxism, a Marxism suitably modified, however, to Hennessyʼs views on the characteristics of MatFem grant materiality (meaning, perhaps, objectivity, reality emerge through her critical engagement with the works and equal causal efficacy) to everything. of Laclau and Mouffe, Foucault, Kristeva and other theorists of the postmodern. MatFem is a ʻway of MatFem/MarxFem: same difference? readingʼ that rejects the dominant pluralist paradigms traces the origins of Materialist and logics of contingency and seeks to establish the Feminism in the work of British and French femi- connections between the discursively constructed dif-

Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) 21 ferentiated subjectivities that have replaced the generic analyticʼ. However, in the introduction to Material- ʻwomanʼ in feminist theorizing, and the hierarchies of ist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference and inequality that exploit and oppress women. Subjectiv- Womenʼs Lives,25 written with co-editor, Chrys ities, in other words, cannot be understood in isolation Ingraham, there is a clear, unambiguous return to from systemically organized totalities. MatFem, as historical materialism, a recognition of its irreplace- a reading practice, is also a way of explaining or able importance for feminist theory and politics. This rewriting and making sense of the world; as such, it introduction, ʻReclaiming Anticapitalist Feminismʼ,26 influences reality through the knowledges it produces is a critique of the dominant feminist concern with about the subject and her social context. Discourse culture, identity and difference considered in isolation and knowledge have materiality in their effects; one of from any systemic understanding of the social forces the material effects of discourse is the construction of that affect womenʼs lives; and a critique of an academic the subject, but this subject is traversed by differences feminism that has marginalized and disparaged the grounded in hierarchies of inequality which are not knowledges produced by the engagement of feminists local or contingent but historical and systemic, such with Marxism, and their contributions to feminist as patriarchy and capitalism. Difference, consequently, scholarship and to the political mobilization of women. is not mere plurality but inequality. More importantly, this introduction is a celebration of The problem of the material relationship between MarxFem, whose premisses and insights, they argue, language, discourse and the social, or between the have been consistently ʻmisread, distorted, or buried discursive (feminist theory) and the non-discursive under the weight of a flourishing postmodern cultural (womenʼs lives divided by exploitative and oppres- politicsʼ.27 They point out that, whatever the name sive social relations), can be resolved through the of the product of feministsʼ efforts to grapple with conceptualization of discourse as ideology. A theory historical materialism (MatFem, Socialist Feminism or of ideology presupposes a theory of the social. This MarxFem), and though these names signal theoretical theory, which informs Hennessyʼs critical reading differences and emphases, together they indicate the of postmodern theories of the subject, discourse, recognition of historical materialism as the source of positionality, language, and so on, is what she calls emancipatory knowledge required for the success of a ʻglobal analyticʼ, which, in light of her references the feminist project. to multinational capitalism, the international divi- In Hennessy and Ingrahamʼs introduction, MatFem sion of labour, overdetermined economic, political becomes a term used interchangeably with MarxFem, and cultural practices, and so on, seems to be at the with the latter being the most prominently displayed. very least a kind of postmodern Marxism. In fact, The authors draw a clear line between the cultural references to historical materialism, and Althusserʼs materialism that characterizes the work of post-Marxist theory of ideology and the notion of symptomatic feminists, who, having rejected historical materialism, reading are so important in the development of her analyse cultural, ideological and political practices arguments that one wonders about her hesitation to in isolation from their material base in capitalism, name Marxism or historical materialism as the theory and MatFem (meaning both MarxFem and Socialist of the social underlying her critique of the ), which is firmly grounded in historical logic of contingency. materialism: ʻunlike cultural feminists, materialist, To sum up, Hennessyʼs version of MatFem is a blend of post-Marxism and postmodern theories of the socialist and Marxist feminists do not see culture as subject. It is a source of ʻreadingsʼ and ʻre-writingsʼ the whole of social life but rather as only one arena that rescue postmodern categories of analysis (subject, of social production and therefore as only one area of 28 discourse, difference) from the conservative limbo feminist struggle.ʼ The authors differentiate MatFem of contingency, localism and pluralism to historicize from MarxFem by indicating that MatFem is the end or contextualize them by connecting them to their result of several discourses (historical materialism, systemic material basis in capitalism and patriarchy. Marxist and Radical Feminisms, and postmodern and This is made possible by understanding discourse as psychoanalytic theories of meaning and subjectivity) ideology and linking ideology to its material base in among which the postmodern input, in their view, is the ʻglobal analyticʼ. the source of its defining characteristics. In Hennessyʼs analysis, historical materialism Nevertheless, in the last paragraphs of the intro- seems like an ever-present but muted shadow, latent duction there is a return to the discussion of MarxFem, under terms such as ʻtotalityʼ, ʻsystemicʼ and ʻglobal its critiques of the idealist features of postmodernism

22 Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) and the differences between the postmodern and the these days. Feminists are more likely to share Landry historical materialist or Marxist analyses of repre- and Macleanʼs critique of Marxismʼs alleged econo- sentations of identity. Theoretical conflicts, they point mism, class reductionism, and disregard for agency out, do not occur in isolation from class conflicts, and the effects of culture and ideology. Underlying and the latter affect the divisions among professional these and similar feminist criticisms of Marxismʼs feminists and their class allegiances. Feminists are putative shortcomings, there is an economistic and divided in their attitudes towards capitalism, their undialectical reading of Marxʼs work. That Marx may understanding of the material conditions of oppres- not have addressed issues that twentieth-century femi- sion, and the extent to which they link the success nists consider important is not a sufficient condition of feminist struggles to the success of anticapitalist to invalidate his methodology as well as the potential struggles. To be a feminist is not necessarily to be of his theory of capitalism to help us theorize and anticapitalist, and to be a Materialist Feminist is not investigate the causes of the oppression of women. equivalent to being socialist or even critical of the This potential, however, was widely recognized in the status quo. In fact, ʻwork that claims the signature early stages of the Womenʼs Liberation Movement. “materialist feminism” shares much in common with In retrospect, the work produced by some British , in that it does not set out to explain self-defined Materialist Feminists writing in the 1970s or change the material realities that link womenʼs reveals that they were actually using and developing 29 oppression to class.ʼ MarxFem, on the other hand, Marxist theory in ways that belied their critical stance does make the connection between the oppression of towards Marxism. Kuhn and Wolpe, for example, women and capitalism, and this is why the purpose editors of the collection Materialism and Feminism,31 of their book, according to the authors, is adopted Engelsʼs definition of materialism: to reinsert into MatFem – especially in those over- According to the materialist conception, the deter- developed sectors where this collection will be most mining factor in history is, in the final instance, widely read – those (untimely) Marxist feminist the production and reproduction of immediate life. knowledges that the drift to cultural politics in This, again, is of a twofold character: on the one postmodern feminism has suppressed. It is our hope side, the production of the means of existence, of that in so doing this project will contribute to the food, clothing and shelter and the tools necessary emergence of feminismʼs third wave and its revival for that production; on the other side, the production as a critical force for transformative social change.30 of human beings themselves, the propagation of the 32 In light of the above – and given the inherent species. ambiguity of the term MatFem – wouldnʼt it be more A materialist problematic entailed, then, recogni- theoretically adequate and politically fruitful to return tion of the fundamental importance, for the analysis to Marxist Feminism? Is the effort of struggling to of human history and social organization, of the redefine MatFem by reinserting MarxFem knowledges production and reproduction of material life – that a worthwhile endeavour? How important is it to broaden is, the transformation of nature and human nature the meaning of MatFem to include MarxFem contents? through labour in the context of changing relations of Perhaps the political climate inside and outside the production and reproduction.33 For Kuhn and Wolpe, academy in the USA is one where Marxism is so the difference between a Marxist and a materialist discredited that Marxist Feminists are likely to find analysis hinged upon whether or not analysis went more professional acceptance and legitimacy by claim- beyond the ʻtraditionalʼ Marxist focus on modes of ing MatFem as their theoretical orientation. I do not production, their tendencies, contradictions and so in any way impute this motivation to Ingraham and forth, to incorporate the historical character of the Hennessy; the introduction to their Materialist Femin- sexual division of labour and the examination of ʻthe ism is openly Marxist. In fact, after I had read it and relations of women to the modes of production and looked over the table of contents, I thought a more reproductionʼ.34 It followed that Marxism could not adequate title would have been Marxist Feminism. yield a ʻcorrectʼ analysis of the oppression of women And anyone familiar with historical materialism can unless it was transformed by including the analysis appreciate the sophisticated Marxist foundation of of the sexual division of labour and all other aspects Hennessyʼs superbly argued book. of the mode of production directly and indirectly Materialist Feminist: am I that name? affecting male–female relationships. Contributors to their volume attempted in various ways to remedy Such positive feminist assessment of the theoretical Marxismʼs ʻfailuresʼ by creatively using Marxist theory and political relevance of Marxism is, however, rare

Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) 23 to explore the relationships between capitalism and of women the causal efficacy of the state, ideology, institutions that specifically oppressed women – for the family and other aspects of capitalist society, is to example, patriarchy, the family, the state, domestic remain faithful its basic tenets, not to transform it. labour, the sexual division of labour, and womenʼs I too wrote about Marxism and feminism in the place in the labour force. 1970s; my approach was different, for I viewed the MatFem was also associated with the work of lacunae in Marxʼs work simply as results of his some French feminists, particularly .35 immediate political and theoretical priorities. Because Materialism (that is, the Marxist method), she argued, Marxʼs method shows the problems inherent in abstract is the only theory of history that views oppression as theories of origins, and reveals the dialectical nature the most fundamental reality. This is why women and of our categories of analysis,41 I concluded early on all oppressed groups need it to examine their situa- that the notion of patriarchy was descriptively useful, tion: ʻto start from oppression defines a materialist but theoretically unsound because it was intentionally approach … oppression is a materialist concept.ʼ36 developed to seek the origin of the oppression of For Delphy, the family or domestic mode of produc- women outside history (i.e. independent from the mode tion, analytically independent of and separate from of production). I was also critical of the use of ʻwomenʼ production, was the site of patriarchal exploitation and ʻmenʼ as categories of analysis (they ignored class, and the material basis of the oppression of women. racial and ethnic divisions, and socio-economic status , she argued, is a labour contract that gives differences) and the utopian nature of ʻsisterhoodʼ, men the right to exploit women, appropriating their given the real contradictions in the material interests labour in the domestic setting or controlling their of capitalist and working-class women. I originate wages or other market earnings; it is, for all practical from Argentina, a society where, unlike the United purposes, a relationship of slavery.37 Delphy sought in States, professional women were not exceptional, class the organization of the mode of reproduction the struc- divisions and self-identification prevailed and the use tural basis for gender divisions. Rather than inquiring of domestic servants was widespread (an important into the social construction of gender or the ways in reason for the lack of conflict between work and which individuals acquire gender identities, she sought family for professional and employed middle-class to identify the material conditions that place men and women). I was, consequently, unconvinced by theories women in unequal relations. Barrett and McIntosh38 which overgeneralized about male domination and criticized Delphy on several grounds. They accused her female oppression and which were not sensitive to of economism (she rejected analyses that gave causal the realities of life under capitalism, where most men importance to ideology), an overemphasis on the exploi- are not powerful and do not have control over their tation of women as wives (overlooking the effects of lives and not all women are powerless. More nuanced motherhood and the situation of single women) and theories, differentiating between kinds of oppression for inappropriately applying the concept of mode of and corresponding levels of analyses were required. production to the family. In postulating the autonomy This is why, in my work, I sought to identify the of the family or domestic mode of production from historically specific capitalist conditions underlying the the mode of production as such, they argued, Delphy observable social and economic inequalities between isolated it from the dynamics of social change.39 An men and women. acceptable materialist analysis, in their view, should However, I have never self-identified as a Materialist connect the economic and ideological levels of analy- Feminist; the label, in my view, misrepresented the sis, examining how material (i.e. economic) conditions dialectical nature of Marxism and obscured the actual structure consciousness.40 Marxist nature of the works thus labelled. While there Although earlier self-defined materialist feminists were some overlaps between my views and those of may have understood Barrett and McIntoshʼs work to Materialist and Socialist Feminists of the 1970s, both be one of ʻtransformingʼ Marxist theory, they actually in terms of topics of analysis and in the aspects of demonstrated its fundamental importance for theoriz- Marxʼs theory of capitalism considered pertinent to ing the oppression of women. A theoretical transform- examine the oppression of women, my work differs in ation would have entailed a challenge to Marxismʼs the rejection of patriarchy as an explanatory concept, fundamental assumptions, rather than the use of those and in the use of Marxʼs method to identify the very assumptions to theorize new phenomena. To capitalist processes that place propertyless men and demonstrate, as they did, a dialectical understanding of women in similar class locations while facing different Marxism, introducing in the analysis of the oppression opportunity structures and, therefore, unequal access

24 Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) to the necessary conditions of reproduction.42 But more principles (e.g. anti-essentialism, contingency, social important than the differences and similarities between constructionism, reduction of social reality to dis- my work and that of other 1970s Socialist Feminists, course, rejection of ʻmetanarrativesʼ, and so on) anti- in the USA and in Britain, is the issue of the present thetical to the development of social analyses and resurgence of MatFem as a fashionable trend within political strategies useful for women and all oppressed feminist theory. Why has MatFem reappeared? Why people.45 The very idea of womenʼs oppression pre- is it a ʻhotʼ commodity, as reflected in the abundance supposes the material reality of their plight and the of recent publications with ʻmaterialismʼ in their title? validity of their claims, notions outside the purview Is MatFem a positive development in feminist theory? of theories for which everything is relative, contingent Should Marxist feminists struggle to regain political and discursively constructed. It is this inability to and academic legitimacy, thus striving to differentiate deal with the material (that is, objective, independent MarxFem from MatFem? of the subjectʼs consciousness) conditions affecting real womenʼs lives that, Ebert argues, has produced Why Materialist Feminism now? a crisis in postmodern feminist thought, because the Does it matter? objectivity and forceful impact of historical processes While it is difficult to disentangle MatFem from Marx- ʻcannot be blunted in discourseʼ; this is why ʻhistorical Fem in early feminist works, especially those written materialism haunts feminismʼ.46 by European feminists, today MatFem and MarxFem In light of the objectively worsening conditions of are qualitatively different theoretical perspectives, working people, particularly women, it has become with radically different political implications. That increasingly untenable to hold on to the notion that they have become somewhat confused reflects the everything is socially or discursively constructed, or a ideological balance of power in the present political localized, contingent story. The oppression of women context, in academia and in the publishing business, is not a story, or a text, or a form of interpreting where ʻdifferenceʼ, ʻrace, gender and classʼ, ʻpost-ismsʼ or reading the world, so that politics is reduced to and, of course, ʻmaterialismʼ have legitimacy and sell, rewriting or re-describing the world, a conclusion while historical materialism does not. that follows from the insistence on the materiality of Early Materialist Feminists took Marxism as their discourse. Because postmodern Materialist Feminists starting point. Despite critiques of Marxismʼs short- have rejected all ʻmetanarrativesʼ, discourses have a comings, Marxist and Materialist Feminists agreed on contradictory relationship to the capitalist structures, the importance of situating the oppression of women processes and contradictions that are their condition in the context of the capitalist mode of production of possibility. They are only ʻcontingentlyʼ related as a whole, examining how the capitalist organiza- (thus duly avoiding the spectres of ʻreductionismʼ and tion of production, the articulation between produc- ʻeconomismʼ) to the mode of production, but, as they tion and reproduction, ideologies, the state, the legal are considered to be material in their effects, they system, and so forth, affected and reproduced the are de facto assumed to be determinant in their own unequal relations between men and women within and right, thus resulting in an unacknowledged discursive outside the domestic sphere. Despite disagreements, reductionism. they shared Engelsʼs conception of historical material- Hennessy and Ingraham argue for the need to keep ism,43 which gives a pivotal role in human history to a connection between discourse, conceptualized as the organization of production and reproduction and ideology, and the relevant ʻglobal analyticsʼ which their changing articulation, as the forces and relations oppress women: patriarchy and capitalism. Their of production change and modes of production change efforts, however, are not sufficient to rescue contem- accordingly. porary MatFem from its clearly anti-Marxist stance Today MatFem is altogether different because it is and only contribute to increase the ambiguity of the grounded in the poststructuralist rejection of Marxism. concept. Besides, MatFem has moved further away The deconstruction of ʻwomenʼ as a category of ana- from the possibility of bridging the gap between dis- lysis, the focus on ʻdiscursively constructedʼ , courses, ideologies and the mode of production. The sexualities, bodies, and manifold differences among latest reincarnation of poststructuralist materialism is women, have severed the links between feminist theory not the matter of language, or the text or discourse, and the actual conditions shaping most womenʼs lives. but rather ʻthe resisting “matter” of the non-discur- Today, ʻfeminist theory has come to mean feminist siveʼ, with the body as the matter under consider- poststructuralismʼ44 and this entails the adoption of ation.47 Matter, whether of the body or anything else,

Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) 25 has to be rendered historically specific in order to postmodernism and poststructuralism, including become theoretically and politically significant, for MatFem, in its various manifestations. ʻmatter as such is a pure creation of thought and an MatFem, a term which may have been useful in abstractionʼ.48 This, in turn, presupposes consideration the past to feminists who, despite their critical stance, of the characteristics of the mode of production which remained firmly within the Marxist tradition, denotes determine the kinds of labour processes and other something entirely different today. How useful is it forms of practice that, dialectically, transform nature to broaden the meaning of MatFem to encompass and human nature, forms of existence and forms of MarxFem if, at the same time, the term is claimed consciousness, bodies and discourses about bodies, by cultural materialists and post-Marxist feminists and so forth. This approach to theorizing matter and whose views are profoundly anti-Marxist? That two materialism is, however, in contradiction with the anthologies of Marxist Feminist writings have been assumptions of post-Marxist MatFem, which con- published under the aegis of Materialist Feminism sequently faces an unresolvable dilemma: ʻhow not attest to the greater market value of ʻmaterialismʼ and to deny the world outside the consciousness of the publishersʼ power to decide what sells, rather than subject but not to make that world the material cause the existence of a theoretical convergence between of social practices eitherʼ.49 If materiality implies MarxFem and MatFem. How will the new generations causality, the denial of the causal efficacy of the learn about the theoretical and political importance of mode of production (for example, through changes historical materialism for women if historical material- in the forces of production, class exploitation, class ist analysis is tamed and ʻgentrifiedʼ under the MatFem struggles, and so on) while postulating the materiality label? Marx and Marxism have already been marginal- of language and discourse ends up in a discourse ized in academia; the inclusion of MarxFem under determinism that undermines the very role that the the MatFem umbrella would only intensify already materiality of discourse is supposed to play, because widespread misunderstandings among the younger ʻif even meaning is material, then there is nothing generations of feminists because, calling attention which is not, and the term simply cancels all the to the ʻmaterialʼ in historical materialism, it would way throughʼ.50 strengthen dominant stereotypes about the ʻvulgar Perhaps these theoretical and political dead-ends of materialismʼ presumably inherent in Marxism. It is post-Marxist MatFem are the basis for its academic time, therefore, for Marxist Feminists to separate and commercial appeal. There is an ʻelective affinityʼ51 themselves from Materialist Feminism and assert the between its dominant theoretical assumptions (which legitimacy and political urgency of their approach. essentially privilege agency, embrace contingency and Essentially, this would entail a return to Marx, exonerate capitalism; minimizing the pivotal role of whose method and analysis of capitalism, despite its class exploitation while emphasizing plurality, diver- ambiguities, omissions, complexities and nineteenth- sity and identity politics), the dominant ideologies in century limitations, has far more to offer feminists the advanced capitalist countries, and the lifestyles and all oppressed people than contemporary theo- and world-views of the middle- and upper-middle-class ries which, having severed the internal relationship professionals and students who have eagerly embraced between existence and consciousness, or between

26 Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) discourse and its material conditions of possibility, response from Rosemary Hennessy) while eliciting postulate the materiality of the discursive and what- a number of comments in M-Fem. The quantitative ever there might be ʻoutsideʼ discourse (Nature? the and qualitative difference between these networksʼ Body?) while rejecting as ʻeconomismʼ the materiality archives is remarkable: M-Fem archives document the – the reality, independent of peopleʼs consciousness, power of Marxism to examine the conditions affect- and causal efficacy – of labour and of the mode of ing womenʼs lives today,54 while the meagreness of production. As Ebert unerringly points out, Marxʼs MATFEMʼs archives can be interpreted as resulting critique of ʻFeuerbachian materialismʼ aptly describes from the relative theoretical irrelevance and politi- todayʼs MatFemʼs materialism: ʻAs far as Feuerbach is cal sterility of postmodern feminism. MATFEM, in a materialist he does not deal with history, and as far almost five years, has been unable to generate a single as he considers history he is not a materialist.ʼ52 sustained theoretical or political discussion, despite its There is another reason why MarxFem should far larger membership. ʻde-linkʼ from MatFem: Marxist Feminists are, theor- Realistically, it can be professionally and politically etically speaking, clearer about what MarxFem is all risky for US academic feminists openly to advocate about, politically and theoretically. MatFem, on the Marxist Feminism. Self-identified Marxist Feminists other hand, remains a nebulous thing, a place for femi- are likely to face a difficult time, politically and pro- nists who are clear about their rejection of Marx and fessionally. They would be perceived as ʻorthodoxʼ or Marxismʼs alleged flaws, but seem to be less certain ʻfundamentalistʼ Marxists and would find difficulties about what they stand for. Feminist scholars, of course, in finding employment, especially at this time when do know what the modern MatFem they theorize is all tenure-track jobs are becoming increasingly scarce in about, but their work would seem to have difficulties US universities. In the short run, therefore, MatFemʼs in engaging the consumers of their scholarship. I academic dominance might remain unchallenged. In am grounding these assertions in the very different the long run – and depending on changes in the world development of two electronic discussion networks, capitalist economy leading to transnational political MATFEM and M-Fem.53 MATFEM (Materialist upheavals and greater awareness among feminist schol- Feminism), which I created in December 1994 with ars of the extent to which most working womenʼs fate Chrys Ingraham and Rosemary Hennessy, has had for is tied to the contradictions of world capitalism – the years a stable membership of over 350 (it is currently timeliness and relevance of Marxism might once again 363). At the beginning, there were the usual messages become self-evident. In the meantime, as the uneasy of self-introduction, but, when those ceased, to our and confusing relationship between MarxFem and disappointment, no sustained discussions took their MatFem illustrates so well, the class struggle at the place. We once attempted a discussion of an article by level of ideology goes on. Rosemary Hennessy, but this project failed. The list has been mostly silent; once in a while someone will Notes post the announcement of a book, or a call for papers. 1. Lise Vogel, Marxism and the Oppression of Women: To- ward a Unitary Theory, Rutgers University Press, New MATFEM lacks a sense of community of intellectual Brunswick NJ, 1983; Womanʼs Questions: Essays for a and political purpose; there is no sense of urgency in Materialist Feminism, Routledge, New York, 1995. examining, from a Materialist Feminist standpoint, 2. See, for example, , , Bantam Books, New York, 1971; Zillah Einsenstein, the various processes that continue to oppress women. ʻDeveloping a Theory of Capitalist Patriarchy and So- M-Fem (Marxist Feminism) is a network I did not cialist Feminismʼ, in Z. Einsenstein, ed., Capitalist Pa- create, but that I help moderate. It was created in May triarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1979. 1997; its small membership (72) reflects the scarcity 3. Vogel, Womanʼs Questions, p. xi. of self-defined Marxist Feminists today. While the 4. Ibid., p. xii. volume of mail varies and the network goes through 5. Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private relatively long periods of silence, it has produced very Property and the State, International Publishers, New York, 1972; see also Janet Sayers, Mary Evans and Nan- lively and useful theoretical and political discussions neke Redclift, eds, Engels Revisited: New Feminist Es- and altogether a far greater quantity of messages than says, Tavistock, London, 1987. MATFEM. A substantial portion of this article was, 6. Margaret Benston, ʻThe Political Economy of Womenʼs Liberationʼ, Monthly Review, vol. 21, September 1969. in fact, written as a response to an M-Fem member 7. Peggy Morton, ʻA Womanʼs Work is Never Doneʼ, who asked about the difference between MatFem and in Edith Altbach, ed., From Feminism to Liberation, MarxFem. I posted it in both lists but drew no reac- Schenkman, Cambridge MA, 1971. 8. Toril Moi and Janice Radway, ʻEditorsʼ Noteʼ, Material- tions from MATFEM (except an enthusiastic, positive

Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000) 27 ist Feminism, Special Issue of South Atlantic Quarterly, 1, no. 1, Fall 1975, pp. 61–80; ʻStructuralist Marxism vol. 93, no. 4, 1994. and the “Woman Question”ʼ, Science and Society, vol. 9. Ibid., p. 750. XLII, no. 3, Fall 1978, pp. 301–23. 10. Jennifer Wicke, ʻCelebrity Material: Materialist Femi- 43. Engels, The Origin of the Family. nism and the Culture of Celebrityʼ, South Atlantic Quar- 44. Barbara Epstein, ʻWhy Poststructuralism is a Dead End terly, vol. 93, no. 4, 1994. for Progressive Thoughtʼ, Socialist Review, vol. 5, no. 11. Donna Landry and Gerald Maclean, Materialist Femi- 2, 1995, pp. 83–119. nisms, Blackwell, Cambridge MA and Oxford, 1993. 45. Ibid., p. 83. 12. Ibid., pp. ix–x. 46. Teresa Ebert, ʻ(Untimely) Critiques for a Red Femin- 13. Ibid., pp. x–xi. ismʼ, in Masʼud Zavarzadeh, Teresa L. Ebert and Donald 14. Ibid., pp. xiii, 5. Morton, eds, Post-ality: Marxism and Postmodernism, 15. Ibid., p. 5. Maisonneuve Press, Washington DC, 1995, pp. 113– 16. Karl Marx, The German Ideology, in Karl Marx: Se- 49. lected Writings, ed. Lawrence H. Simon, Hackett, Indi- 47. Ibid., pp. 119–21. anapolis and Cambridge, 1994, p. 117. 48. Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, International 17. Landry and Maclean, Materialist Feminisms, p. 15. Publishers, New York, 1940, pp. 322–3. 18. Ibid., pp. 12–13. 49. Ebert, ʻ(Untimely) Critiquesʼ, p. 117. 19. Ibid., p. 229. 50. Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism, Black- 20. Louis Althusser, ʻIdeology and Ideological State Ap- well, Oxford, 1996, p. 72. paratusesʼ, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 51. Max Weber, ʻThe Social Psychology of the World Reli- Monthly Review Press, New York, 1971, pp. 127–86. gionsʼ, in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max 21. See Louis Althusser, ʻContradiction and Overdetermin- Weber: Essays in , Oxford University Press, ationʼ, in For Marx, Vintage Books, New York, 1970, New York, 1958, p. 284. especially pp. 111–16. Marx had expressed the same idea 52. Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, cited in Ebert, when he stated that, while the relations of production ʻ(Untimely) Critiquesʼ, p. 125. ʻreveal the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the 53. Their archived discussions can be found in their entire social structure, … this does not prevent the same homepages. MATFEM: http://csf.colorado.edu/matfem/ economic basis … due to innumerable different empiri- M-Fem: http://csf.colorado.edu/m-fem/. cal circumstances … from showing infinite variations 54. US Marxist Feminists tend to be theoretically less rig- and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained orous than their European counterparts and display an only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances.ʼ eclectic and pragmatic approach to Marx and Marxism, Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 3, International Publishers, which might prompt Europeans to dismiss their efforts New York, 1968, pp. 791–2. as at best liberal, not Marxist. While I would agree, in 22. Rosemary Hennessy, Materialist Feminism and the Poli- principle, with such an assessment with respect to some tics of Discourse, Routledge, New York and London, postings in M-Fem, not all of the messages can be thus 1993, pp. xi–xii. described. 23. Ibid., p. xii. 24. Ibid. 25. Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham, Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference, and Womenʼs Lives, Routledge, New York and London, 1997. 26. Ibid., pp. 1–14. 27. Ibid., p. 5. 28. Ibid., p. 7. 29. Ibid., p. 9. 30. Ibid. 31. Annette Kuhn and Annemarie Wolpe, eds, Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production, Routledge, London, 1978. 32. Ibid., p. 7. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid., pp. 7–8. 35. Christine Delphy, The Main Enemy: A Materialist Analy- sis of Womenʼs Oppression, Womenʼs Research and Re- sources Centre Publications, London, 1977. 36. Christine Delphy, ʻA Materialist Feminism is Possibleʼ, Feminist Review, No. 4, 1980, p. 87 37. Delphy, The Main Enemy, p. 15. 38. Michèle Barrett and Mary McIntosh, The Anti-social Family, Verso, London, 1982. 39. Ibid., p. 99. 40. Ibid., p. 103. 41. Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, International Publishers, New York, 1970, pp. 205–6. 42. See, for example, Martha E. Gimenez, ʻMarxism and Feminismʼ, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol.

28 Radical Philosophy 101 (May/June 2000)