Helpsheet created for Phi 383W, Spring 2002.
HARTMANN
The relation between patriarchy and capitalism is one of “partnership.” They are not the
same system, but they work together; they have been adapting to one another. Because
they are not identical, Marxism as a critique of capitalism and Radical Feminism as a
critique of patriarchy each, taken alone, is insufficient to explain the oppression of
women in capitalist societies today. Just as patriarchy and capitalism form a partnership,
so also feminism and Marxism need to form an alliance to combat both. The problem
with Marxism alone is that it is sex-blind. The problem with radical feminism alone is
that it is overly psychologized, or insufficiently historicized.
Hartmann defines patriarchy as • a set of social relations among men that • produce male
solidarity and female subordination and that • have a material base, namely • control of
women’s labor, in both the private and public spheres. She assumes we know what
capitalism is. I would say that capitalism is a system in which profit is derived from
production, rather than from (e.g.) plunder, or from shrewd dealing in the marketplace.
Capitalism is able to derive profit from the production process because it systematically
keeps wages low enough so workers generate surplus value and, hence, profit. (Value is
the abstract reality to which profit corresponds as a concrete reality.)
How did this partnership between capitalism and patriarchy develop? Hartmann, in this
article, concentrates on the history of the last couple of centuries (although the
partnership goes back further). In the late 19th century, the idea of a “family wage”
became accepted, along with the more general notion of “separate spheres.” This is a case
where capitalism adjust to patriarchy: the capitalist isn’t happy about paying males better
than before, but accepts doing so because, after all, (a) it does serve capitalism in various
ways to have women taking care of the home front, and (b) by reinforcing the patriarchal
“separate spheres” idea, the capitalist is contributing to a gender class system which—
like racism and a racial class system—functions as a mechanism of social control, thus
serving capitalism again in this indirect way. On the other hand, patriarchy will
sometimes adjust to capitalism: e.g. patriarchy isn’t happy about giving mothers more
control over children (as in custody cases) than they had been given in earlier times, but
in an advanced capitalist economy children are an economic liability more than an
economic asset so the practice of commonly granting custody to mothers developed.
Today the family wage practice is declining, as we have increasing numbers of families
with two income earners. What we have in its place (insofar as it is declining) is job
segregation by gender, and the male/female wage differential. These are now the means
by which economic class differences and patriarchal social control are maintained. Job
segregation and the wage differential tend to keep women connected to and partially
dependent on men, so that even though we have a high divorce rate, the practice of
marriage is perpetuated. (People may marry for short periods, but they marry—and marry
often.)
Ok, so capitalism and patriarchy form a kind of partnership, and each will sometimes
make concessions to the needs of the other. Hartmann also makes this further point:
patriarchy has certainly existed (and exists) in non-capitalist societies. Non-capitalist
societies, that is, are equally likely to denigrate women. However, the particular form of
denigration of women found in a society changes, with changes in economic systems. We
can see the influence of capitalism in the fact that, in our society, the way in which
women are denigrated includes their being called “irrational” and “dependent.” Both of
these accusations reflect the value system that underlies capitalism, the value system
made explicit in the work of the classical theorists of capitalism (Adam Smith, David
Ricardo, et al.). These theorists conceptualized human beings as “individuals first, who
then interact” and so they valued independence and devalued dependence or even
interdependence. (They seemed to forget that we become the individuals we eventually
become only through a process of interaction with our initial caretakers and other people
in our lives. Out of interaction, true individuation occurs.) These same theorists assumed
that the sole motive of human action is to “rationally maximize one’s utilities,” that is, to
rationally calculate how much economic advantage you will obtain from each decision.
They valued “rationality” (understood as a sort of calculation) and scorned “irrationality.”
The fact that the patriarchy we face is one in which women are denigrated because they
are said to be irrational and dependent reveals that ours is a patriarchy deeply colored by
capitalist ideology. Non-capitalist patriarchy would still denigrate women--but would use
other terms for doing so. Capitalism values individualism and “rational choice” among
exchange-values; it devalues nurturance and use-values.
Hartmann advocates an alliance between the political left and the feminist movement.
Marxism, she says, has this to offer: a highly developed theory of social change. And
feminism has this to offer: an understanding of the value of interdependence and of
nurturance and use-value.