Class Notes (839,191)
Canada (511,223)
York University (35,583)
Social Science (3,019)
SOSC 1350 (235)
Lecture

Social Feminism - On the Family and Labor.docx

5 Pages
114 Views

Department
Social Science
Course Code
SOSC 1350
Professor
Julie Dowsett

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Description
January 25, 2012 SOCIAL F EMINISM :O N THE F AMILY AND L ABOR  Class politics or class-based anti-racism has never been a part of multiculturalism - why is this erased from multiculturalism?  Socialism in general, and social feminists have been very concerned with class  Anti racism feminist view – multiculturalism serves to cover over inequalities or actively obscure what’s going. Multiculturalism at its root is very much a liberal discourse. Trudeau was a very liberal thinker (i.e., writing the Charter into the Constitution)  John Locke, on of the early liberalists, wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration – a response to the fear of Catholics taking over in England, and an argument to tolerating religious minorities (Christians only). Toleration serves to maintain the norm – i.e., whiteness. And everyone else is merely tolerated  Multiculturalism is a liberal discourse – according to socialists and social feminists, multiculturalism covers over the exploitation of the working class, and cover over how the capitalist system relies on the exploitation of the lower class, and pretends that everything is equitable fair.  Therefore, if multiculturalism covers over how racism works in Canadian society, then liberalism covers over how classism works in society  Social feminists have been concerned with which the ways in which family and labor are highly gendered (i.e., reproductive labor, working around the house) 1. Socialism/Marxism a. Three common misconceptions about socialism/Marxism  Socialism long predates Marx  3 misunderstandings: 1. There is a direct line of descent from Karl Marx to Joseph Stalin – that Stalin has very little to do with Marx’s political program 2. Marxism is dead because the Soviet Union is dead; this assumes that there is some sort of relationship between the Soviet Union experiment (i.e., Stalin and his work camps) and Marxism – there is, but the Soviet Union wasn’t really what Marx had in mind. Marxist analysis of capitalism has been superseded. However, the Soviet experience had very little to do with Marx, and his analysis 3. Marx was seeking some kind of heaven on Earth, an unattainable utopia – a perfect social and economic system in which there would be absolute equality peace, harmony, and no conflict whatsoever. Marx was critical of this idealist society. Marx in no way assumes that people are naturally equal or cooperative; but rather people are a product of their social environment. Capitalism encourages people to be competitive, individualistic selfish, in order to succeed; people are not naturally like that. In many ways, Marx makes very similar arguments to those of schools of feminist thought in understanding that there is nothing natural about gender because it’s socially constructed. We as humans are socially constructed by our environment b. Capitalist society is characterized by exploitation  Marx understands capitalist society to be characterized by exploitation and class struggle.  Exploitation has to do with the appropriation by a ruling class of an economic surplus. 1  Workers produce a product – what they get in terms of the selling is actually very little compared to what the owners get for that product.  All they get is enough to feed, clothe, and house the working force, and to feed, clothe and house their children who will become the next generation of the working class.  To be exploited means to be treated fairly  Exploitation – who owns property, who works for a wage, who doesn’t work for a wage, the rules governing how property ownership is established  Feudalism – in feudal society, there’s the ruling class and the peasants/serfs. The ruling class owns the land, while the peasants and serfs work the land, producing the surplus. Most of what they produce goes directly into the landowners. However, they’re allowed to keep some of what they make, but most of it goes to their employer. The transfer of this surplus is obvious; but this isn’t generally critiqued as unfair. c. Law works in the interests of capitalism and the ruling class  In capitalist society, the exploitation becomes hidden/mystified in the wage contract: o Liberalism discourse (i.e., equality before the law, Official Version of the Law) o Labor laws, which essentially assumes that the worker and the employer are in a position/relationship of equality. For Marx, the law is not neutral; it works, and has always worked in the interests of the capitalist class. In a feudal society, The law always works in the interest of the land-owning class, in a slave economy, the law works in the interest of the slaveholders. Therefore, the law always works in the interest of the ruling class, even in contemporary labor law, which is ostensibly about protecting workers as much as it is protecting capitalists.  Capitalists don’t want workers to form unions, go on strike, and partake in active legislations. Employers want workers to work as much as possible, and pay them as little as possible  Laboring laws benefiting workers can be made, and have been made since the Industrial Revolution (i.e., 8 hour work day, basic health and safety laws etc.). However, we know that this doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone (i.e., foreign domestic caregivers), but we do have it ostensibly  The average working class person is paid enough to keep them more/less healthy for work.  Neo-liberalism – for Marx and socialist more generally, law works to mystify the exploitation to go on – you’re given a wage, and because of this, there’s a covering up of how exploitative working conditions actually are.  To sum up the Marxist view of exploitation, in capitalism, the existence of a contract between two individuals who are formal equals mystifies what’s going on.  Marx makes a very similar critique of equality as many feminists – Marx is not a feminist, however, the way feminists would critique formal equality, is very much the same way that Marx would critique exploitation and how it is hidden  Socialists would contend that this doesn’t mean that his critique doesn’t continue to be relevant; today capitalist modes of production that began in Britain has become global, and the whole world has rose to this global economy, and exploitation has become international  The concentration of wealth and power as brought with it an increasingly global struggle  Capitalism – a struggle between capital and labor, and labor is in a weak position because it is essentially dependent on capitalists.  In liberalism, the rights of capital has been respected much more than the rights of workers 2 2. Socialism and the “Woman Question” a. History of thought in the so-called “west” has been written “by men, for men, and about men” (Susan Moller Okin)  Susan Okin – the history of thought in the so-called “west”, and been written “by men, for men, and about men”. She was specially referring to the history of political thought, but has certainly been used in economic thought, social thought etc.  Socialist theory has sometimes been different – many socialists have continued to write as if women don’t exist and gender is not a concern. b. 19 century socialist preoccupation with the “woman question”  Socialism has had a long-standing preoccupation with the “Woman Question”  Charles Fournier – French utopian socialist – 1808, he was the first to argue that the status of women in a given society is a fundamental measuring stick of its advancement, and also a fundamental cause of social progress. It’s interesting that he gave the status of women such prominence, as a socialist, as a measuring stick of advancement. He also coined the term “feminism”  Later, socialists and feminists picked up on this idea, on the relationship between women and social progress, including Marx. Subsequent socialists like Friedrich Engels and August Bebel did develop this idea that if you want to look at the progress of society, you need to look at the status of women  Fournier set the stage for the 19 century socialist preoccupation with the Woman Question.  By ‘feminists’ Fournier meant woman committed to social politicalism, not really fem
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit