Women’s struggle and class struggle – Part Two

Friday, 12 March 2010

Biological differences between the sexes are often raised to justify all kinds of reactionary concepts, such as supposed differences in intelligence. These are also used to justify confining women to the four walls of the home, as if this were somehow biologically inbuilt. In reality, these ideas reflect material forces that have emerged as a result of the development of class society, where one class oppresses another.

Biology and female nature
Some argue that the basis of inequality between men and women is biological. This argument about biology can take several forms. Many feminists argue that women s oppression is due to patriarchy that is embedded in men s nature to oppress women. But, as Engels explains, the early history of humankind shows that women have not always been oppressed and in an inferior position to men. Hence there is no evidence that it is biologically built into men that they should oppress women as it is also generally not built into people to oppress each other. This way of thinking would also be a very pessimistic conclusion as then there would be nothing that could be done about it.

Others refer to "female nature". The reference to so-called female nature is just as reactionary as the claim that women s oppression is built into men. It is a view similar to those that try to say that socialism is impossible, because human nature is greedy, selfish, etc. The fact is there is no such thing as "human nature" fixed for all time. "Human nature" changes over time with the development of society. There is much more of a difference between Neolithic man and modern man than there is between women and men today. Just look at the difference between how women are expected to behave in a primitive African tribe and in the Western world today. Or just look at the difference between a girl raised in Hollywood or a small rural village in China. The difference is immense.

Ted Grant and Alan Woods in their book on Marxism and Science, Reason in Revolt, explain how human nature is a product of history:

“Marx and Engels explained that ‘man makes himself’. Human nature, like consciousness, is a product of the prevailing social and economic conditions. That is why human nature has changed throughout history, following the development of society itself. For the socio-biologist, human characteristics appear biologically fixed through our genes, giving sustenance to the myth that ’you can’t change human nature.’ In point of fact, so-called ‘human nature’ has been transformed and re-transformed many times in the course of human history (...)” (Reason and Revolt, page 329)

Well, but some will object, girls and boys do behave differently. Boys would rather play with weapons and cars and girls preferably with dolls. One mother recently replied on television to the question of why she bought girly toys for her daughter, "She likes pink so much, I believe it is genetic," a simple version of the biological argument that one encounters everywhere in our society. This way of thinking can thus be used to say that the mother instinct is an argument in favour of solely women caring for the children and that therefore their place is in the home.

We are brought up differently
How do you separate biology and culture? Through several millennia there has been created a culture where a difference in the upbringing of girls and boys has been practiced from the day they are born. It is of course nothing that changes by itself, and studies show that it still happens in developed countries like Denmark and Sweden. It is built in to the culture in all countries because classes and inequality exist in all countries. Therefore it is impossible to say what the biological difference is in how boys and girls behave, if there is any at all. We believe that it is undoubtedly a difference in how girls and boys are raised and that it has an influence in the formation of their personalities. History shows that the way humans behave, the norms and values that are valued, do not depend on “human nature” but exactly on the material conditions we grow up under and are raised in.

A test described by Ann-Elisabeth Knudsen, associate professor in Danish language and psychology specializing in the development of children s brains, shows how we treat children differently from their very infancy. In the experiment, a group of volunteers were asked to take care of a three-month infant for half an hour. The experiment took place in a room with hidden cameras. The child was deliberately dressed in gender-neutral clothing, so you could not tell if it was a boy or girl.

"After sitting with the child for a while, it becomes too much for all the test-persons (both men and women). They have tentatively started a game, but are clearly physically uncomfortable and awkward, and before the mother [of the child] comes back, all subjects without exception, pull just a little on the nappy to check the child s sex! The relief is plain to trace subsequently in the video recordings, almost as if they expressed: Oh, you re that kind! So now I know how to hold, talk and play with you . It is thought provoking, especially considering that there are not really any physiological differences in the needs of a three-month old girl and boy. So the difference in our approach to the way we treat young children may be deeply dependent on our unconscious gender expectations "(Ann-Elisabeth Knudsen, Pوne piger og dumme drenge, 2002. Our emphasis. Our translation)

Ann-Elisabeth Knudsen’s basic point is that “brains evolve, as they are influenced to”. So when we treat boys and girls differently, their brains also develop differently. Fortunately, the brain develops throughout life and thus are also affected by their lives as a whole.1

The experiment shows that girls and boys are affected differently from birth, and as explained above, "female nature" and "male nature" changes throughout history. With the changing influences, we alter the development of girls and boys. So there is no biological basis for saying that women belong in the home, don’t understand mathematics, or are otherwise inferior to men. Just as little as there is any basis for claiming that men have a biological urge to oppress women. Humankind evolves as it is affected to.2

From birth girls and boys are met with different expectations, and in line with the general stagnation of capitalism, and hence cultural degeneration, this is not improving. The Swedish ombudsman recently condemned a toy catalogue from Toys ‘R’ Us for being too gender stereotyped3. Just look at the nearest toy catalogue and see that the pages have become increasingly divided into pink and blue: pink children s bicycles with handlebar baskets and child seats for girls and blue racing bicycles with flames down the sides for boys; dolls for girls and technical Lego for the boys.

As brain research shows, there is a huge potential for the development of humankind, regardless of gender, once all the burdens that are currently weighing on us, are eliminated under socialism. When humans’ primary concern is no longer acquiring one’s daily bread, then the energy can be used to develop the talents that each of us, men and women, possess.

A social construction?
Partly in opposition to these kinds of reactionary arguments, i.e. that the oppression of women is biologically based and thus natural, another school of thought in feminism, social-constructivism, arose. Social-constructivists correctly enough point out that a social construction of what gender is takes place and that it is not a priori biologically given. But social-constructivists deny not only that biology plays a role, but also that material factors have any effect. According to social-constructivists there is no material basis for women s oppression.

Christel Stormhoj, Associate Professor at Roskilde University explains it thus:

"The gap between biological and social/cultural gender is dissolved. The body does not exist as a real object logically or temporally prior to its articulation [...] it means that what is commonly called the biological sex, is seen as partly constituted by the discursive forms and thus as an effect [...] Thus gender cannot be seen as based on [...] a foundation of a material nature, which is external to the discourse. 4" (Stormhoj, ”Videnskabsteoretiske positioner i samfundsvidenskabelig, feministisk teori”, i ”Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne”, 2003, Our translation)

Many left-wing youth have been attracted to these ideas because they categorically reject the biology argument, criticise the established oppressive norms and more generally challenge the powers that be. Many interesting social-constructivist studies have been made of how notions of gender are created. But as Marxists we reject social-constructivism as a theory that neither can explain nor change women s repression.

Firstly we must ask ourselves: what is the basis of this social construction? To that question you get the answer: social constructions evolve from each other. Yes, but what was then the origin of the first construction, and why did the constructions develop in one direction and not another? The social-constructivists cannot answer that. Social-constructivism is basically an idealistic theory. Not understood as what one in everyday language understands as idealism, as beautiful ideals, but philosophical idealism, where history is explained as the history of ideas, and where the actions of people are explained from abstract thought and not material needs. In philosophical materialism, ideas and thoughts are also important, but they do not play an independent part separated from their material basis.

Thus the solutions become equally vague. If it is social constructions, norms and language that are essential and the material reality doesn’t exist, then the solution is to try to widen the scope of the norm, to show that it is possible to do things differently. This results in a lot of (often good) articles, studies and the like, demonstrating the oppressive norm and besides that different kinds of "social experiments" with various family and living-forms, as we saw for instance in the 1970s. Many of the experiments, as for example collective ways of living, had many good sides, as for example joint distribution of the housework, childcare etc., but they could not solve the problem of oppression in general and the oppression of women specifically, because they did not address the root cause of the problem, the material cause of oppression. The social structures, ideas, norms, perceptions have a material basis, as already explained by Engels in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”.

Marxism and consciousness
That Marxism is materialist means first and foremost that we recognize that the world exists outside and independently of our consciousness of it. The proof is that we can make experiments. Ideas, and thus notions of gender, constructions and the like cannot exist without a material brain that needs a body that in turn needs food and drink. The ideas and norms ultimately depend on the material basis. Marx explains the connection in the following way:

“The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows.

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life, conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

“In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.” (Marx, 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface, our emphasis)

It is the material that determines ideas and when the economic base changes the ideas also change. The above shows clearly that Marxism has absolutely no mechanical view of the relationship between the material and ideas, as many try to claim, and as some so-called Marxists through time in fact have done. Marx and Engels never had a mechanical view of the relationship between the economy and ideas. To make it absolutely clear, we have included the following quotation from Engels:

“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.” (Engels, 1890 Letter to J. Bloch)

Human consciousness is in fact deeply conservative. In normal periods of history (which represent the vast majority of time) it lags far behind the evolution of the material basis. On the surface it looks as if nothing is happening, that the workers will never go into struggle and accept all attacks from the bosses. But you cannot draw a conclusion on how consciousness and the class struggle develop based on how it all apparently looks on the surface at any given moment in time. It is this kind of thinking that makes some sectarians write off the working class as bourgeoisified. In a workplace there can be an apparent calm. The workers apparently accept all the boss is saying: they can’t say hello to each other, or they get fired, they have to work faster, arrive 15 minutes earlier to change clothes, stay half an hour longer, etc. And nothing happens. But one day the workers have had enough; they are not prepared to accept any more and they come out on strike. Often it is those layers who apparently were the most backward, who throw themselves the hardest into the struggle, as the Bible says: “the last shall be the first”.

Consciousness does not evolve in a straight line but by leaps and bounds. During a struggle consciousness catches up with the objective situation and moves forward apace. It is obviously not a straight line forwards. There are defeats, setbacks and turns both to the right and the left. It is the task of the Marxists at each step, no matter if it is a victory or defeat, to do what we can to increase the awareness of working-class of their own strength and draw the right conclusions.

There is a dialectical relationship between the material conditions and consciousness. It is people of flesh and blood that create history and change the world but they do so within the framework that the material conditions have set. When the material basis is transformed, eventually this changes the ideas, etc.

“The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.” (Marx, 1845, Theses on Feuerbach)

The vast majority learn through experience. As Marxists we must of course conduct an ideological struggle also against women s oppression and any prejudices against women. But even though we repeatedly explain that we live in a class society and the need to abolish private property, only a small minority will consciously realise this because they have read a book or listened to a political speech. Only through struggle is the vast majority pushed to draw revolutionary conclusions. It is the same with the women s question.

Women’s struggle is part of the class struggle
The difference between Feminists and Marxists is that Feminists put women s issues either above or on a par with the class issue. Those who adopt the latter position see the oppression of women as being on an equal footing with class oppression, racial oppression, etc. (that is, those of them who actually recognise the existence of class oppression, which many of them also reject). Marxists, however, explain that class oppression is fundamental. That does not mean that it may not be harsher to be a poor black woman than a white male worker. It means that class division is the fundamental contradiction that all other forms of oppression revolve around. As we explained, the oppression of women originated with Class Society. The women s question cannot be separated from the class question, as the class question cannot be separated from the women’s question. For the working class to be victorious this can only come about by going against all divisions. Women’s struggle and class struggle are two sides of the same coin.

With the most basic legal rights such as universal suffrage it becomes increasingly evident that women s questions are class questions. The women of the bourgeoisie demanded equal rights to get the same education as men, defending their property on an equal footing with their men, in short, to share in their privileges. Working women were, on the other hand, allowed to share in the toil with their husbands, share the toil in the home with their men, experiencing the attacks and attrition from capitalism on an equal footing with their men. Of course we fight for all demands for legal equality between men and women, but we also maintain a class line and explain that any democratic progress cannot be other than a springboard to the fight against capitalism.

On the other hand, it is also clear that women s struggle is an inseparable part of the class struggle. Capitalists do whatever they can to divide the working class. If they can get a group to accept lower wages this puts pressure on wages for the entire working class. If they can get a group of workers to look down on another group this divides the common struggle against the capitalists. The only strength of the Working Class is in unity across gender, race, sexuality, etc. It is therefore in the interests of the whole working class, including men, to fight the oppression of women.

Women s issues are raised not only by the left wing, but are also used demagogically by the right wing. For example the Danish People s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) has used women s issues with racist rhetoric against immigrants in Denmark, where in words they claim they are fighting for the emancipation of women, but in reality propose one racist and oppressive action after another.

The struggle against forced marriages in Muslim families, for example, has been used as an argument for implementing the 24-years rule, which prevents family reunification for partners if one of them is younger than 24 years old. Apart from that, family reunification can only happen if the partners’ overall connection to Denmark is greater than their overall connection to another country, and if the partner who lives in Denmark can provide more than 60,000 Danish kroner (more than 8000 Euros) as a guarantee, and hasn’t received cash benefits or unemployment benefits for a year, and earns enough to provide for the partner. Last but not least, there is a demand that the joint residence has to have a certain size. All this is used as an argument to fight family reunification, which the law by the way has not prevented since the women are simply sent to another country to get married by force, with whoever the family has chosen.

In this context, women s liberation has even repeatedly been used to legitimise the imperialist invasion of Afghanistan. Thus we can see how the bourgeoisie uses women s issues to divide the working class and introduce all kinds of reactionary concepts.

« Part one To be continueed »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
1Brain development is a topic beyond this article s scope. Brain research can both be used progressively to gain greater knowledge about brain development and explain that the human brain is not given once and for all at birth. On the other hand, it can also be misconstrued to draw reactionary conclusions. One of the conclusions of Ann-Elisabeth Knudsen, who is definitely not a socialist, is that since the boys and girls brains are affected differently (and to some extent also is different according to her), then it may be a solution to separate the boys and girls during reading lessons in schools. As a consequence of keeping within the framework of capitalism, instead of changing the material basis of the problem, she suggests symptomatic treatment and thus ends up by helping to reinforce the differences.

2Many raise the question of sexuality in the same discussion. That is not something we can go into more detail here, but something we must examine more closely elsewhere.

3”Julekatalog til bّrn vوkker vrede”, http://www.dr.dk 02.12.09

4 Stormhoj defines discourse as, "There is no consensus on one single definition of the concept of discourse. Discourse in a broad sense refers to a finite horizon of meaning and action and language as that activity which creates significance and meaning." (Stormhoj, ”Videnskabsteoretiske positioner i samfundsvidenskabelig, feministisk teori”, i ”Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne”, 2003, Our translation)

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 19%							Participated in the vote : 10