Does capitalism require patriarchy?
From our cosmopolitan
Capitalism and patriarchy have long been subjects of scholarly inquiry, with some scholars arguing that capitalism necessitates the existence of patriarchy.
A popular argument presses that capitalism thrives on the foundations of patriarchy, as men are heavily oppressed in the workplace while women are confined to housework and reproduction, both of which are vital for sustaining capitalism.
Nancy Fraser, in her article titled “Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode,” highlights that activities such as care and social reproduction encompass tasks like socializing the young, building communities, and producing shared meanings and values that support social cooperation. While much of these works occur outside the market and do not involve wage labor, it is essential for the existence of waged work, surplus value accumulation, and the functioning of capitalism. Social reproduction serves as a crucial background condition for capitalist production, just like the concept of "original accumulation." It sustains the necessary foundations that underpin capitalist societies.
Through patriarchy, capital consolidates gender roles, making housework and raising children the natural responsibilities and obligations of women. This arrangement allows capital to extract a significant amount of unpaid labour from women, resulting in substantial profits.
As summarized in “Developing a Theory by Capitalist Patriarchy and Socialist Feminism” by Zillah R. Eisenstein, women play significant roles in stabilizing and upholding patriarchal structures in various aspects of society. They fulfill prescribed roles as housewives, mothers, and other facets of patriarchal structures, as well as engaging in the task of reproducing a future workforce and caring for the well-being of men and children within society. Moreover, when women participate in the labor force they often face wage disparities, thereby reinforcing capitalism through their dual roles as workers and consumers.
While this argument emphasizes an interplay between capitalism and gender roles, it fails to explain why women must exclusively occupy these roles. Under capitalism, it is conceivable to envision a distinct social class specializing in housework and even reproduction, as depicted in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World.” This class could hypothetically be gender-neutral and still be compatible with the principles of capitalism.
It is essential to recognize that gender hierarchy is not an inherent requirement of capitalism but rather a historical phenomenon. Gender roles predate capitalism, indicating that patriarchy already existed before the emergence of capitalism. Consequently, capitalism can be seen as perpetuating and potentially exacerbating patriarchy rather than creating it.
Patriarchy provides a natural advantage for capitalism, allowing it to exploit free housework by leaving women burdened with domestic responsibilities, regardless of their participation in the paid workforce.
Many women find themselves juggling a "double day" where they engage in both paid labor and unpaid domestic work, effectively doing what Eisenstein describes as "two jobs for less than the price of one." Housework and reproduction thus become transactional fields through which patriarchy and capitalism intersect. To envision a separation of capitalism and patriarchy, it is crucial to challenge the gender roles entrenched within the home and workplace.
To challenge the association between productivity and wage labor, a broader understanding of labor and value is necessary. It is crucial to recognize the immense social and economic value of housework and reproduction, regardless of whether they occur within the formal wage system. By reframing the notion of productivity and value, we can begin to dismantle the gendered hierarchy perpetuated by capitalism and patriarchy.
This entails acknowledging that women's unpaid labor in the home directly supports and sustains capitalist systems. By valuing and respecting housework, we can challenge the perception that it is solely a woman's responsibility and highlight its significance in maintaining the functioning of society. This recognition also helps address the invisibility of women's contributions to households and communities.
Currently, many men, as well as capitalist structures and society at large, fail to perceive the true extent of women's contributions, dismissing them as nonproductive despite their engagement in paid employment. Silvia Federici explains this in “Wages Against Housework” as stemming from a narrow definition of productive labor as wage labor, which generates surplus value for capital.
Besides, the unique aspect of housework is that it is seemingly endless. Like Sisyphus pushing a rock, it requires consistent repetition and never truly reaches completion. This makes housework more difficult to be seen and appreciated. Many men might take it for granted, only noticing the cleanliness or disorderliness of the house without fully understanding the efforts required to maintain it.
One proposal to address the circumstances faced by women has been wages for housework. The campaign for Wages for Housework aims to make housework visible and challenge the notion that it is inherently linked to women's nature, instincts, and obligations. By assigning value to housework, this approach seeks to bridge the gap in recognition and understanding of women's labour and contributions.
Advocates argue that compensating housework would provide economic recognition for the immense amount of labor and time that women invest in maintaining households and raising children. It would also challenge the assumption that such work is unskilled or unworthy of compensation. Wages for housework can potentially enable women to have greater economic autonomy, contributing to their empowerment within the household and society at large.
Therefore, advocates think the concept of payment for housework can serve as an effective tool in making housework visible, countering the prevailing notion that housework and reproduction are the natural responsibilities, instincts, and obligations of women, and ultimately challenging the gendered hierarchy perpetuated by capitalism and patriarchy.
However, there are inherent challenges associated with the proposal for wages for housework. Women not only undertake housework but also engage in child-rearing, emotional labor, and various other aspects within the domestic sphere. Federici wrote: “capital create the housewife to service the male worker physically, emotionally and sexually – to raise his children, mend his socks, patch up his ego when it is crushed by the work and the social relations (which are relations of loneliness) that capital has reserved for him.”
Wages for housework could help housework become visible, but it is hard to make other works visible. And assigning a monetary value solely to housework might overlook these additional responsibilities and contributions. Silvia Federici thinks wages for housework could be a beginning, to push forward the visibility of all works women undertake, and to get “multiple wages” for multiple works. But, this view is maybe too idealistic. In the workplace, employees always undertake a lot of emotional labor to provide emotional value for their boss, but, there are still no wages for emotional labor, though this labor is much more visible than that which women undertake.
The issue of wages for housework becomes more complicated when considering the potential reinforcement of injustice within the domestic sphere. The critical aspect to consider is the source of these wages. If the wages come solely from men, whether on an individual or collective level, it may create a dynamic that resembles an employer-employee relationship within the household, potentially exacerbating oppressive conditions.
Capitalism already creates a division between the home and the workplace, reinforcing distinct gender roles in each sphere. Instead of introducing capitalism into the domestic sphere, it may be more beneficial to bridge this gap and strive for equality. Wages for housework, when sourced from entities such as the government or other organizations, offer a potentially more favourable solution.
Additionally, the campaign may inadvertently solidify gender roles, even if efforts are made to present it as a gender-neutral concept, such as providing wages to anyone involved in performing household tasks, regardless of their gender. After all, it is evident that the majority of individuals engaged in housework are women. In practical terms, it becomes challenging to instantiate a solution without perpetuating stereotypes of traditional gender roles. It is crucial to consider these complexities and engage in nuanced discussions to ensure that any proposed solutions do not inadvertently reinforce existing gender hierarchies.
So, the campaign for Wages for Housework initially presents an appealing approach by seeking to empower women and challenge patriarchy through the mechanisms of capitalism. However, there is a risk that this process might inadvertently reinforce patriarchy and capitalism.
Advocating for payment of wages exhibits a certain level of naivety akin to a Marxist perspective, as it attempts to use material and economic changes to transform ideology. Society is far more complex, with intricate interactions and intersections among various aspects and levels, rather than simplistic cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, efforts to address the interplay between patriarchy and capitalism require a cooperative interaction among different aspects and the implementation of more nuanced and multifaceted measures.
To challenge the interdependencies between capitalism and patriarchy, it is necessary to question and redefine gender roles in both the home and the workplace. Breaking down the rigid boundaries that confine men and women to specific roles and responsibilities is essential for achieving gender equality.
This requires promoting shared responsibilities within households, where both men and women actively participate in housework, child-rearing, and emotional labor. It involves encouraging men to challenge traditional notions of masculinity and actively engage in caregiving tasks. At the same time, it requires dismantling workplace structures that perpetuate gender disparities, such as pay gaps and limited opportunities for women's career advancement.
Education and awareness also play a pivotal role in challenging gender roles and promoting equality. Schools and educational institutions can incorporate comprehensive gender education, underscoring the importance of respecting and valuing diverse contributions regardless of gender. By nurturing an environment that challenges stereotypes and promotes inclusivity, we can shape future generations to question and redefine traditional gender roles.
Furthermore, it is crucial to address systemic issues such as affordable childcare, flexible work arrangements, and social support systems that enable individuals to balance work and family responsibilities. By creating an enabling environment that supports work-life balance for all individuals, regardless of gender, we can challenge the gendered division of labour and promote more equitable societies.
Conclusion
The relationship between capitalism and patriarchy is complex and intertwined. While patriarchy predates capitalism, capitalism maintains gender hierarchies for its benefit. To challenge this interconnection, it is necessary to challenge and redefine gender roles, as well as to recognize the value of housework and reproduction beyond the narrow confines of wage labor. Yet it is important to approach these challenges with a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of society.
By questioning gender roles, promoting shared responsibilities, and addressing systemic issues, we can move toward a future where individuals are not enmeshed in prescribed gender roles, and where both capitalism and patriarchy are shaken so as to create a more just and equal society.
Kurt Li
our cosmopolitan