Review: Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex 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, racism 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 feminism 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 ’patriarchy’ 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 Susan Faludi in the New Yorker 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 sexism, and when they began to whose book Sexual Politics 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 Redstockings 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. Historical materialism is the basis of Marx- She completely rejects Engels’ theory of ism, and it means that we understand that the development of gender 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.