The relationship between the oppression displayed in class and gender is one that has managed to simultaneously unite and divide the two theoretical ideologies of Marxism and Feminism, with the former being a strive for class abolishment using an articulation of Capitalist ills and the latter a communication of how women as a gender face discrimination in several conceptual realms. Therefore, both fulfil the purpose of theory in elucidating certain behaviours (1). Marxists believe a capitalist society is what forces the proletariat to exist solely on what they can provide as labour with little fulfilling reward, while feminists argue that patriarchy existing as the dominant system causes women to be held back and deemed as inferior. Marxists working against Capitalism using methods such as exposure to capitalist society’s ills mirror feminists who use this to reveal the restrictions of Patriarchy, thus, an abolishment is a significant feature on their agendas. Observing both these concepts with the theoretic scopes of Marxism and Feminism provides critics with a range of concepts made by both ideologies that express how Marxism articulates gender oppression.
An example of a union between Marxism and gender oppression comes with the observation of labour, classified by Marxism as the physical abilities the proletariat can offer to society to receive profit and live substantially. Marxist theory dedicates itself to uncovering the stages and aspects of this concept, believing that our society is structured by the forces of production that operate to produce material elements. This conveys the significance labour has in Marxist theory with relation to its role as a production, however, it does not have to remain in a class realm. To elaborate, dialogue on labour can bleed into the feminist sphere in observation of the different environments that it can exist, stemming from the categorisation Marx gives them of ‘Productive’ labour and ‘Unproductive/Reproductive’ labour (2). Productive labour is the generation of surplus value-the subtraction of the cost to make a product from the profit, such as the production of vital raw materials. While unproductive or reproductive labour is any work which is needed but receives no wages and so the responsibility of maintaining a house and children are what comes to mind. Women being reduced to exist in the domestic sphere is a result of wealth becoming associated with men after agriculture progressed in their favour with farming as a source of product and profit (3). As this area was not open to any female contribution, the home was where the woman was expected to spend her time and attention. Benston encapsulates this observation by stating that “most household labour in a capitalist society…remains in the pre-market stage” and it is strictly “reserved for women and it is in this fact that we can find the basis for a definition of women”.(1969, Page 17). The overt stereotype of responsibilities only women have located in the definition of Unproductive/Reproductive labour is the first bridge between Marxist tradition and gender oppression, embodied in the blending of labour as a Marxist concept with traditional ideals of what societal role women should play that can step into covert sexism. The idea that the foundation of “of women” should reside in household labour that receives no wage highlights the oppression women face under a society that endorses capitalist ideals. This is due to the restriction of opportunities women have in life, caging them from anything beyond the homes they are expected to upkeep as their sole duty while their male counterparts are granted progression through work.
The insulting factor of this aspect is elevated when considering how a capitalist society deems this type of work insignificant as it fails to produce any material value, therefore “it is not usually considered “real work” since it is outside of trade and the marketplace” [Benston, 1969, Page 18]. This can also lead to what Marxism is attempting to vocalise in the sense of money as a concept is what our reality is made of, thus, producing material products and profit is the only way to contribute to society (4). By this outlandish standard, women fail to contribute and so “in a society in which money determines value” they are a “group who work outside the money economy” [Benston, 1969, Page 19], despite them being forced into this territory by patriarchal practice with capitalism endorsements. Capitalism and the patriarchy collectively and strategically execute attempts to eliminate options for women to exist as valid entities outside of the home, as well as refusing to validate them in the home still, then proceed to disregard them since they are unable to elevate to economics even though they are not welcomed or encouraged there. In their critique of a group for a dynamic that exists as a result of their combined ideologies, both mindsets display the hypocrisy that reigns over their ideals when examining them in the same scope.
As a result of this harmful contradiction, Marx feminists work to counteract the exclusion of housework experiences from valued production by advocating for it to be included in the waged capitalist economy. Critics who work in the area between Marxism and Feminism have anticipated the compensation to domestic labour as an attempt to lift at least one practice of oppression they experience. This credit is significant to the liberation of women in an economic sense as “when such work is moved into the public sector, then the material basis for discrimination against women will be gone” [Benston, 1969, Page 22]. Thus, the emancipation of women in a financial realm is dependent on the metaphorical validation wages provide, conveying another connection between Marxism and gender oppression. Gimenez provides specific areas that can be infiltrated with a feminine presence to bring this reform forward in “the abolition of gender barriers to education, employment, career advancement, political participation, etc. is a necessary and key aspect of the struggle against the oppression of women [2005, Page 28]. This illustrates an essential feature of the relationship between Marxism and the liberation of women’s rights in the sense, as most areas that can be associated with Marxist theory and its sphere can exist as a goal for the feminist movement to progress with women’s position in society. Feminism can identify how areas penetrated by a Marxist perspective to uncover classist practice also offer layers that call to its agenda. By incorporating wages as a concept explored by Marxism and developing it with ideas of how it can execute women’s oppression and thus, imply where their liberation lies, feminists are establishing a significant bridge between the two ideologies. The most noted display of this piece of Marx’s feminist agenda can be identified in the ‘International Wages for Housework’ in 1972, started by Selma James as a catalyst for discourse on the value of housework and caring labour (5). Therefore, this organisation serves as a physical representation of the union that can exist between Marxism and Feminism when considering how ideals of the first are essentials to bring the objectives of the other.
Marxist feminists have coined the lifestyle capitalism and the patriarchy have branded them with as ‘domestic slavery’, articulating how women can negatively receive the boxing into the private sphere of housework and raising children because of the exploitation it allows. Domestic slavery as a mode of oppression invites the capitalist construct (6) into the gender division that exists between the public sphere of work and the private sphere of the home. This is due to how domestic slavery as a restriction placed upon women exploits them by diminishing their existence to only ensuring their husbands return from work to a clean home, cooked meal, and preoccupied children. One can find similarities between this gendered expression of despotism and that of class, as the relationship between a working husband and housewife mirrors that of a boss and employee in the sense of the former holds a higher sense of power over the latter which they exert freely. This generates two chauvinistic dynamics that may exist in separate areas, yet can be associated with each other due to Marx’s classifying different examples of labour introducing women to the concept. The catalyst for Marxist agenda operates alongside that of Feminism, implied by Engels in “the first opposition that appears in history coincides with…the antagonism between man and woman” (1884, Chapter 2), which demonstrates how the forced servitude of the proletariat under the bourgeoise is a replica of “that of the female sex by the male” [Engels, 1884, Chapter 2]. Each theoretic scope has its nemesis type figure standing as the society they have been forced to exist under. These oppressors can work together to elevate their authority and as a result, reduce their targets to a repetitive lifestyle of labour, whether that labour produces commodities to be purchased or a comfortable environment for those who create these products. This space where women have to abide by encapsulates this blend. This is a result of how it exists as a combination of the sexist ideals executed by the patriarchy as a system relating to sex and the classist attitude capitalism endorses to every extent it can. This perspective of the traditional relationship between a husband and wife being equated to that of a boss and worker progresses the relationship between Marxist tradition and gender oppression, as similarities between how they originate and execute situations highlights suggestions of why they should not be severed in theoretic observations to such a large extent.
This aspect of the union between Marxist thought and gender oppression can be developed from the interior aspect of the home to the exterior environments which it is orchestrated to create. To establish this dynamic, one must align the economical situation of the workplace with the social one of the home, and underline the fact that the home can serve as the root for consistent existence of the workplace. This is classified in Marx feminism as Social Reproduction theory, meaning the process in which societal structures that maintain the stereotypes in positions they depend on are reproduced. In this case, this process takes place in the home, with the traditional role of the housewife raising the children who will grow into “fresh workers’’ [Bhattacharya, 2013] and will submit to the needs of the future bourgeoise. This underlines how the replacement of workers is ensured and thus, confirms the reproduction of labour and a capitalist system. Women have found themselves with an argument to counteract capitalism’s narrow-minded claim that they exist outside of a valued economic system since their maintenance of the “the nuclear family is a valuable stabilizing force in a capitalist society” [Benston, 1969, Page 21]. Marxists come to value women in this respect since they provide an area of critiquing Capitalism. However, there resides the risk that they are manoeuvring female oppression simply for their own needs of generating support for their own movement, rather than advocating for the liberation of women, conveying the tension and separation between the two theories. The fact that social reproduction not only explains how class oppression is reproduced culturally but also gender discrimination elevates the association between Marxism and Feminism. Capitalism is again obtaining male-chauvinist ideology as an ally to extend its oppression against women to its agenda against the working class. Bhattacharya presents this dynamic as a result of how “the major functions of reproducing the working class take place outside the workplace” [2013], therefore, capitalism relies on social reproduction occurring in spaces that aren’t its main priority to guarantee its survival.
As heavily advocated by Marxist theory, literature can exemplify the oppression that capitalism executes over the proletariat (7) as a means of assembling endorsements for the Marxist agenda. This presentation of theoretic ideas in literature is also a part of feminist writing, significantly in what critics classify as ‘The Female Phase’, beginning in 1920 as an exploration into the female experience in artistic mediums (8). This is important in any analysis as for women who were writers “this meant turning to their own lives for subjects” [Dobie, 2011, Page 105]. Thus, the candid representation of womanhood is evident in feminist texts crafted by women, resulting in credible portrayals of the oppression faced.
Mahasweta Devi takes a combination of Marxism and Feminism and further incorporates ideas from Postcolonial theory, specifically imperialism which refers to a country’s execution of power over another using military force, in her 1997 short story ‘Breastgiver’. The text exists as an articulation of the systematic oppression of women in the third world country of India, where most people lived “in the British era when divide and rule was the policy’’ [Devi, 1997, Page 224], therefore they exemplify Western ideals as well as ‘oriental’ after having the West imposed onto them through imperialism. Furthermore, they are operating under one of the oldest forms of a societal structure known as the Caste system. This stratification derives from the Hindu religion and works to place individuals into a hierarchy that is based on intellect and karma (work), thus, some individuals are granted power (9). The British Empire endorsed this system due to its placement of power. This immediately mirrors the structures previously stated such as the hierarchical dynamic between a man and woman as well as the bourgeois and proletariat. One can identify the chauvinistic elements of the Caste system that are similar to the patriarchy and capitalism as a sense of superiority is lacing the system together, therefore, Devi is presenting a narrative that blends Marxism and gender oppression with Postcolonialist literature in a matter of context. One of the placements this stratification offers is Shudras, meaning the labourers of the society who echo the existence of the proletariat in that their worth is placed upon their ability to provide labour for those structured as superior to them. Those above them are the Brahmins and Kshatriyas and, therefore, serve as the Western bourgeoisie’s mirror in this Eastern society. In a feminist perspective, the Shudras are the women who serve their husbands standing as the Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
Devi’s protagonist, Jashoda, exists as a blend of all three of these theoretical scopes in her identity of an Indian woman (10) of the lower class who works as a wet nurse for the upper class in her society who inhabit the West’s mindset. Devi exemplifies the effects of this combination in stating that “Jashoda was a mother by profession, a professional mother” [1997, Page 222], as she is tasked with breastfeeding the children of upper-class families. Here, one can identify a blend of Marxist and Feminist ideals as by crafting Jashoda’s exclusively feminine role as a ‘mother’ to be demonstrated as a job in ‘profession’ introduces the element of womanhood being transformed from the biological realm to an economical one. Devi progresses this with the presentation of women’s social existence through the use of imagery of their most policed body part, their breasts, which have been transformed into commodities as they are the vessel women use to exert labour. This is encapsulated in the text in “she thought of her breasts as her most precious objects” [Devi, 1997, Page 228]. this conveys how Indian working-class women are conditioned to perceive their natural body parts with importance but not for their validation for feminine liberation as this validation can only exist in an economical laboured sense. Jashonda’s characterisation holds up to the idea that “in any case, household work remains structurally the same-a matter of private production [Benston, 1969, Page 20] as she is practising labour in a household concealed by privacy similar to Western women. This underlines how prevalent gender oppression in a Marxist realm is since it crosses over to different cultures. This demonstration of housework has the reinforcement of capitalism, the patriarchy and imperialism due to its execution fitting their value of power dynamic.
Devi further gels Marxist terminology with feminine concepts to elevate this, evident in the proposal that those who Jashonda served should be “returning the milk debt [1997, Page 239]. To associate breastfeeding with the idea of being in debt is outlandish in presentation, yet it encapsulates womanhood existing in a Marxist realm and gaining some source of power. The labour Jashonda is exerting through her breasts has built up debt for those who have benefited from it, echoing the exact circumstance in a financial atmosphere in Marxism. Marx feminism is further illustrated in the text, mostly in the sphere of production of ensuring future generations to uphold this presence of womanhood in a laboured vein. Devi articulates how wet nurses will be reproduced as the “daughters-in-law” Jashonda is breastfeeding “will be mothers” and “when they are mothers, they will suckle their children” [1997, Page 227]. This echoes social reproduction theory by conveying the fact that the younger generation of femininity will maintain the transference of their biological aspects to a laboured environment, as they will too use their breasts as commodities. Overall, Devi executes how gender oppression can exist alongside that of class and race, in that her creations exemplify experiences of financial hierarchies forcing one to alter womanhood to appease the ideals as well as the West imposing its attitudes onto your society.
To conclude, a union between Marxism and Feminism can be identified when dissecting women’s experience under the Capitalist society that Marxism wishes to abolish. It is the acknowledgement of spaces that unveil gender oppression in areas typically analysed through a Marxist scope, a norm that usually results in this discrimination being disregarded. As proposed by Gimenez “as long as capitalism remains the dominant mode of production, it is impossible fully to understand the forces that oppress women” [2005, Page 12], highlighting how Capitalism hijacks women’s experience and masks the difficulties faced. As Marxism is more concerned with opposing Capitalism and what it does to the working class, they tend to overlook the female aspect of its reign’s harm. Discourse on this topic is needed to elevate the relationship between Marxist tradition and gender oppression under an economical sense, with the voices of women being encouraged in order to ensure both theories receive an equilibrium of credit.
Word Count: 3,008
Footnotes
- Dobie-definition of theory provided in “Theory into Practise: An Introduction to Literary Criticism” 2011
- Marx Karl-Categorisation of labour, Marx Feminism Wikipedia page
- Engels-Agriculture leading to wealth becoming associated most with men provided in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884
- Marx’s materialism vs spirituality as provided by Dobie in Theory into Practise
- International Wages for Housework organisation, started in 1972 by Selma James, Marx Feminism Wikipedia page
- Angela Davis on domestic slavery
- Marxism and literature as provided by Dobie in Theory into Practise
- Phases in Feminist literature as provided by Dobie in Theory into Practise
- Caste System of India, hierarchy based around the intellect and obtaining of karma one has
- Jashonda’s nationality as referenced in Breastgiver by Devi, Page 225
Bibliography
Capitalism and the Oppression of Women, M.Gimenez, 2005, Science & Society, Vol. 69, №1, January 2005, 11–32
The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation, Margaret Benston, 1969, Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham, Materialist feminism : a reader in class, difference, and women’s lives, 1997 pp.17–23
Frederick Engels Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, 1884, Marxist.OrgArchive
WHAT IS SOCIAL REPRODUCTION THEORY? Bhattacharya, 2013, SocialistWorker.org
Theory Into Practice, Anne Dobie, 2011, Wadsworth Publishing; 3rd edition
Breastgiver, Mahasweta Devi, 1997, In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, 1988 pp.222–240, Translated by Gayrati Spivak