Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 24, No. 3/4, pp. 283–293, 2001 Copyright © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0277-5395/01/$–see front matter PII S0277-5395(01)00187-X WHY A MATERIALIST FEMINISM IS (STILL) POSSIBLE— AND NECESSARY Stevi Jackson Centre for Women’s Studies, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK Synopsis — The title of this paper derives from Christine Delphy’s (1980) rejoinder to her Marxist crit- ics, formulated at a time when feminist theory was centrally preoccupied with material social inequali- ties. Since then, we have witnessed the so-called “cultural turn” as a result of which perspectives that fo- cus on social structures, relations, and practices have been sidelined. Not all feminists, however, took this turn, and there have recently been signs of a revival of materialist feminism. In assessing the effects of these theoretical shifts, and in making a case for the continued relevance of materialist feminism, I will focus on the analysis of gender and sexuality. Here, I will argue that a sociologically informed, ma- terialist approach has more to offer feminism than more culturally oriented postmodern and queer perspectives. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. INTRODUCTION Not all feminists, however, took the cultural The title of this article is borrowed from Chris- turn or embraced postmodernism. Many contin- tine Delphy’s rejoinder to her Marxist critics: ued to work within broadly materialist frame- “A materialist feminism is possible” (Delphy, works and to address modernist preoccupations 1980). Michèle Barrett and Mary McIntosh such as the pursuit of liberty, justice, and equal- (1979), among others, had chastised Delphy ity. Moreover, in the early 1990s, when postmod- for making free with Marxism, for borrowing ern feminism seemed to have become the estab- Marx’s method and some of his concepts while lished theoretical orthodoxy, materialist not staying true to the letter of his texts and, feminism began to be revived or perhaps rein- above all, for daring to suggest that the vented, especially in the United States (Hen- method of historical materialism could be ap- nessy, 1993; Hennessy & Ingraham, 1997; Landry plied to patriarchal productive relations within & MacLean, 1993). Recently even Judith Butler family households. Significantly, Delphy’s af- (1997) has drawn on historical materialism to firmation of materialist feminism was made in contest the view that sexual oppression is response to another, more traditionally Marx- “merely cultural.” Because I wish to argue for ist, version of materialism. Yet in a very few the continued importance of materialist perspec- years many of those who saw Delphy as insuf- tives, I welcome this resurgence of interest in ma- ficiently Marxist had abandoned materialist terial social relations. I am concerned, however, analysis altogether as a result of the so-called by some of the forms it is taking, in particular the “cultural turn,” which Michèle Barrett charac- tendency—evident in Butler’s (1997) article and terised as a shift in feminism’s emphasis from elsewhere1—to reduce the material to capitalist “things” (such as women’s work and male vio- economic relations. This might bring us full circle lence) to “words,” to issues of language, repre- back to the least productive forms of 1970s sentation, and subjectivity (Barrett, 1992). Marxism, in which every form of inequality that This development, sometimes called the “lin- was not demonstrably functional to capitalism guistic turn,” is associated with the move, dur- was declared nonmaterial. This is precisely the ing the 1980s, away from the “modernist” form of Marxism that Delphy challenged. agenda of early second-wave feminism to- Given that the term “materialist” has been wards postmodern perspectives. claimed from many competing theoretical po- 283 284 Stevi Jackson sitions I should make it clear that I am using it the social, I am also seeking to reclaim some to refer to perspectives deriving from Marx’s fundamental sociological insights. My under- historical materialism. My own theoretical al- standing of the social encompasses all aspects legiance is to materialist feminism as it devel- of social life, from structural inequalities to ev- oped in France from the 1970s, and particu- eryday interaction. It is concerned with mean- larly the variant of it associated with Christine ing, both at the level of our wider culture and Delphy. Materialist feminism originally as it informs our everyday social life. It in- emerged in opposition both to conventional cludes subjectivity because our sense of who Marxism and to feminisms of difference. Its we are in relation to others constantly guides exponents included, in addition to Delphy, Co- our actions and interactions and, conversely, lette Guillaumin, Nicole-Claude Mathieu, and who we are is in part a consequence of our lo- Monique Wittig. These were radical feminists cation within gendered, class, racial, and other in that the object of their analysis was prima- divisions, and of the social and cultural milieux rily patriarchy rather than capitalism—and we inhabit. they refused to see the former as deriving from I will return to these different facets of the the latter—but they saw historical materialism social later in the paper. First, however, I will as a method of analysing relations between give a very brief and necessarily sketchy out- men and women as social rather than natural. line of the trajectory of the cultural turn, pay- Materialist feminism is not a form of eco- ing particular attention to the issue of gender nomic determinism. As Delphy and Leonard and the category “women.” Finally, I will elu- (1992) remind us, one of the original strengths cidate my argument further in relation to cur- of Marx’s materialism was that he did not con- rent debates on gender and heterosexuality. ceive of the economic as an abstract system with its own internal laws, but as a realm of so- THE CULTURAL TURN AND THE cial relations, constructed through social activ- PROBLEM OF “WOMEN” ity. I want to argue for a version of materialist feminism that foregrounds the social—social Until the early 1980s the dominant perspec- structures, relations, and practices—but that tives within feminist theory derived from the does not reduce all social structures, relations, social sciences and were generally informed and practices to capitalism. From my perspec- by, or formulated in dialogue with, Marxism. It tive patriarchal or gendered structures, rela- is these perspectives that were displaced by the tions and practices are every bit as material as cultural turn and subsequently brushed aside capitalist ones, as are those deriving from rac- or dismissed as a source of past errors. Be- ism, colonialism, and imperialism. And, of cause these theories focused on social struc- course, all these intersect and interact, often in ture, analysing women’s oppression as the unpredictable and contradictory ways, so that product of a patriarchal and/or capitalist social the social order is not some seamless mono- system, they have often been depicted as lithic entity. Hence, adopting a materialist flawed by foundationalism and universalism, stance does not preclude awareness of differ- suspected of being essentialist, racist and het- ences among women: on the contrary, a full erosexist (see, e.g., Flax, 1990). Yet this early understanding of those differences requires feminist theorising gave feminism some of its that we pay attention to material social ine- most important and lasting insights, most sig- qualities and everyday social practices. Nor nificantly the idea that sexuality and gender does materialism ignore issues of language, are socially constructed, as well as an emanci- culture representation, and subjectivity, but it patory politics of social transformation. does entail locating them in their social and In Britain, and to a lesser extent in the historical context. Above all, materialist femi- United States, it was Marxist feminists who nism does not reduce women’s oppression to a spearheaded the move away from social struc- single cause; it eschews attempts at totalising tural to cultural, literary, and philosophical the- grand theory and transhistorical, universalistic ories.2 They had been resistant to those per- claims (see Delphy, 1984, pp. 17–27). spectives, such as French materialist feminism, For me, a materialist perspective is neces- which radically reformulated Marxism (Barrett sarily a sociologically informed one; hence, in & McIntosh, 1979), but were more receptive to reasserting the importance of the material and ideas that might extend Marxism’s reach with- Materialist Feminism 285 out challenging its central tenets. The problem proach, treating “women” and “men” as “fluc- was that Marxism, despite its strengths as a sys- tuating identities” (Riley, 1988) or the binary tematic theory of social oppression, could not divide of gender as a “regulatory fiction” to be account for all aspects of gender relations. subverted (Butler, 1990). In so doing, how- Even in areas that were within Marxism’s tradi- ever, they lost touch with material social struc- tional remit, notably women’s labour, it was tures and practices. It became impossible to difficult to explain why it should be women think of “women” and “men” as social catego- who occupied particular niches in the capitalist ries, products of a structural hierarchy—the order—for example, as reproducers of labour perspective that materialist feminists were de- power or a reserve army of labour. veloping and that questioned, just as radically, This latter problem was central to the project the idea that gender categories were natural of the Marxist feminist journal m/f, which was and presocial (Delphy, 1984, 1993; Wittig, launched in 1978. The editors saw the question 1992). The cultural turn effectively sidelined of “how women are produced as a category” as this materialist analysis and emptied the con- the key to explaining their social subordination cept of gender of its social import as a hierar- (Adams, Brown, & Cowie, 1978, p.