Heidi Hartmann

The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism and Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex

Heidi Hartmann has consistently shown a concern with mixing the feminism with marxism in analyzing the structure of male domination - that is, while Hartmann is broadly identified with marxist analysis in the sense that she thinks all forms of structural domination ultimately must be supported by the material basis, she denies the assertion that the form of domination through "patriarchy" is merely the superstructure and instead argues that patriarchy, as class domination, is a form of systemic domination by one sex over the other based on the solid material basis of its own. In fact, for Hartmann the domination through patriarchy is in many senses more fundamental and thoroughly developed than capitalism as a form of domination as it had been there for much longer times historically, and almost all societies have had some division of labor based on sex and differential attribution of status based on that division favoring males (However, how strongly patriarchy operates depends on the structural organization of the society, and Hartmann thinks that capitalism exacerbated patriarchy - in fact, a historical analysis of how this happened is largely the subject of the latter article, which is more specific in focus). Because of this view attributing material basis to both capitalism and patriarchy, Hartmann laments the fact that most marxist feminism so far tended to greatly emphasize the elements of marxism, while downplaying the feminist question by subsuming women as merely the part of the dominated proletariat. In that regard, marxist feminist approach is fundamentally inadequate. On the other hand, Hartmann notes that radical feminist approach is also inadequate in a different sense, for although it focuses foremost on the feminist question, in turn neglects the aspect of historical development of patriarchal structure - rendering all forms of patriarchal domination as if they are identical.

In short, by themselves both marxist feminism and radical feminism are somewhat inadequate. Hartmann's main claim is, then, that we need a more progressive union of these two perspectives - one that treats the feminist question as a substantive problem with material basis, using the marxist methodology to reveal that material base upon which the power for male domination rests upon. What is this material basis for the power of male domination? Briefly, Hartmann maintains that this material basis should be conceived of as all forms of social structures that enable men to control women's labor - whether that be in the "public" sphere of workplace or state, or the "private" sphere of household. In the latter sphere, monogamous heterosexual marriage enabling men to benefit from housework and personal services women perform, as well as all forms of social institutions that buttress it, as the lower wages for women that inhibit women from attaining economic independence, is perceived as particularly effective mechanism that upholds the material power basis of male domination. By the way, being an introductory theoretical text, this article by Hartmann is somewhat loosely written and there is little systemic evidence to support her point. Yet this general framework of the analysis of the structure of male domination as supported by the material basis of men's abililty to control women's labor power is adopted by a number of later works. For instance, the analysis of how exclusion of women took place in the Irish context by Pyle is one of the exemplary works of this nature, focusing particularly on the role of the state to shore up that material base of male domination. On the other hand, Hartmann provides for a brief exposition on how this combination of marxism and patriarchy may be achieved in more substantively empirical terms in the latter half of the article. Here, her primary concern is with the role the family wages played in allowing men to "provide for the whole family economically" yet in turn to control women's domestic labor. It is obvious that this served the interests of male workers, yet Hartmann notes that, while the family wage arrangement might have appeared ininimical to capitalist interests, it in fact served the interests of capitalists as well as they knew that it was more beneficial to pay men family wages and benefit from women's unpaid reproductive services. Hartmann also notes of the great flexibility capitalists show in adapting to the need for social control - that they are aware that it is often more beneficial to them to be more concerned with social control, say, giving white males privileges for the sake of their complacence, than to try to extract labor power from all types of workers including women and minorities indiscriminately. Now, obviously this view is totally one-sided, in the sense that it perceives of the family wages as solely serving the interest of domination on the part of men but totally fails to look at the role of interests on the part of women. But perhaps this is the way a theory should be - it is very articulate, very concrete, and easy to be applied - in the sense that one can unequivocally agree or disagree with the proposition in formulating researches out of the theoretical exposition.

The second article elaborates more fully on one of the subtheme that the first article briefly touched upon - how the interests of male workers themselves played a crucial role in upholding the job segregation by sex - through such policies as family wages and protective legislation. In turn, in the context of capitalism, job segregation is seen as the primary mechanism that butresses the male control of female labor, in the sense that it enables men to enforce lower wages onto women and in turn make them economically dependent. In another word, within the framework of the last article, job segregation is seen as the link between capitalism and patriarchy, providing the material basis for both. Then, the larger part of this article contains the historical analysis of how this structure of job segregation materialized in the context of modern capitalism. In doing so, Hartmann places particular emphasis on the role played by individual male workers - with focus on their actions through unions - in excluding women workers and perpetuating the male dominance. That is, while Hartmann is aware that capitalists played an important role in the same process, she asserts that the role of the former tended to be greatly underestimated in the previous work. Another important point Hartmann makes is that contrary to some Marxist assertion that patriarchal domination of women by men crystallized only at the advent of capitalism and is therefore the byproduct of the process of capitalism, Hartmann maintains that partriarchal structure was already established in most of human societies before the advent of capitalism, and that the particular form capitalism later adopted only inherited the elements of that already developed patriarchy. Accordingly, at the onset Hartmann notes of several anthropological works that point to how the patriarchal social structures developed in the context of the traditional society. Two mechanisms have been crucial in extending traditional division of labor of sexes into the context of capitalism, Hartmann says: (1) the already established division of labor between sexes that benefitted men, and (2) techniques of hierchical organization and control that men were better able to mobilize at the advent of capitalism, not least due to the already established male power prior to the advent of capitalism.

Finally, it is not patriarchal structures always existed in the same form at any time in the history, but rather its development depends on the particular development of historical events. So, accordingly, several factors are noted of as particularly conducive to the development of patriarchy (p. 146), which include: that women lose control of means of subsistence, that women's work become private, that some men assert power over other men through the state, by elevating them within the nuclear families as "head of household" to play the nuclear families against the kin group. Insofar as capitalism tends to increase the importance of public spheres attributed to men and solidifies the state mechanisms, Hartmann is acutely aware that capitalism tends to exacerbate patriarchy.