文：早吾島 (Scroll down for English version)
迄今所有我們稱之為「性別理論(Gender theories)」都是父權意識形態的一部分。本文旨在遵循馬克思對意識形態的定義來重新思考性別理論，對當前的性別理論進行解構，試圖進一步明白這些性別理論的本質。正如馬克思所言，在「一切堅固的都化為烏有，一切神聖的都被褻瀆」的時候，我們將思考這些理論是否、又能否在人們如何被迫面對自己的現實生活時，思考與與他人的關係。（Marx, 2012）
為了闡明「意識形態」這一概念，本文將引用馬克思的部分文本。此外，本文還將探討「性別」的含義，並討論「意識形態」的意義。
「性別(Gender)」與「性(Sex)」的起源
根據雷蒙德·威廉斯（Raymond Williams）的定義，「性別」一詞的起源是一般性的「產生(Beget)」，但是隨著「類型 (genre)」和「類別(genus)」這些詞漸漸地出現了一些比較專門的意義時。Gender一字便幾乎僅用於語法上……但是在以前，這個詞有時也會在語法以外的場合使用。可以觀察到，在1970年代之前，「性別」很少被提及，「性」是更常用的詞語（見圖1和圖2）。根據威廉斯（2008）的說法，這是因為在20世紀，「性(Sex)」一詞與「性物件(Sex Object)」聯繫在一起。 於1949年出版的女性主義經典《第二性(The second sex)》的作者波伏娃（Simone de Beauvoir）將這一概念稱作「第二性(the second sex)」而不是「第二性別(Second gender)」。波伏娃在書中使用「產生(Engender)」一詞來表達「附加性別特徵(attaching sexual characteristics)」的意思。與此同時，「性」一詞源於拉丁語sexus，-ūs，來自於sec-這個詞根，意思是「切割」（比較section、dissect、segment）。在這個意義上，「性(Sex)」與與「身體特徵(physical characteristics)」關聯，家庭勞動的分工才是將家庭作為一種機制(institution)與社會其他部分分開的主要因素。
在《第二性》一書中，波伏娃並未真正建立出「性別(Gender)」這一概念。波伏娃認為，女性並非生來便是「女人」，而是漸漸成為的。女性被稱為「第二性」是透過她們日常互動和基於物質生產和交換的社交關係學習而來。直到「做性別(Doing Gender)」理論的興起後，「性別(Gender)」和「生理性別(Sex)」才有了區分。這樣分類的方式，將「性別(Sex)」，指的是實際的人類性行為實踐，並將其與「性別(Gender)」作為一種表現特質分離開來。而「性別(Gender)」則被視為是客觀的象徵結構和腳本，女性必須在其中採用和演繹她們的「女性形態」（West＆Zimmerman，1987）。雷蒙德·威廉斯以格拉德斯通(Gladston) 的「雅典娜除了性別，沒有女人的成分，除了外表，沒有女性的特徵 (Athene has nothing of sex except the gender, nothing of the woman except the form)」（1878）為例，解釋了「性別(Gender)」這個作為一種正式用語的起源。其反映了的是，在運用「性別(Gender)」時，我們實質上是在對sex進行客體化(objectification)，將「生物特徵」與性徵和性實踐(sexual practices)分開，進一步使得性別的象徵建構與物質世界疏離，進而創造了性別的物化現象。
因此，性別理論已演變成為一種「意識形態」，用「性別關係(Gender relations)」取代了性實踐和關係(sexual practices and relations between sexes)成為研究的固定主題。要更好地理解這個概念，有必要深入探討「意識形態」這個詞語的定義。
定義意識形態
馬克思（1970）認為意識形態不只是一種為自我欺騙的錯誤看法，也不是單單可以描繪成統治階級和父權社會強加的理想。相反，意識形態是一種思想和意識的生產，這些生產與個人的物質活動和交往相互交織，也是現實生活的語言。思想和觀念的產生，如政治、法律、道德、宗教、形而上學和其他方面的精神產品所反映的，是他們實質交往行為的直接對應。人是自己思想的製造者，他們的心理活動受到他們生產力和相應交往發展的制約，一直發展到其最遠的形式。意識（conciosuness）總是有意識的存在（conscious existence）的反映，而有意識的存在代表的則是個體的實際生命過程。
馬克思的哲學理論產生了馬克思主義獨特研究方法論，這種方法論的前提是：所有的實際研究應是從地面升華到天堂，與德國哲學的從天堂降臨到地面的方法形成對比。馬克思主義的方法從真實、活躍的人開始，研究意識形態的發展與產生，這些反射和迴聲系統的建立基於人們在實質世界生活的過程。人類大腦中形成的想像是他們物質生活過程的加工後的表現，這是可以透過經驗驗證和有著物質前提的。道德、宗教、形而上學以及所有其他形式意識和意識形態在這種研究方法中不再被認為是獨立於經院的，抽空獨立出來的意識和意識形態並沒有它們的自身歷史的發展脈絡。同時，人們在發展他們的物質生產和交往過程中，改變了他們的思想和思想產物，同時改變了他們真實的存在。生活不是由意識所決定，而是意識被生活所決定。
因此，依照馬克思的觀點，唯物主義社會學的研究方式是歷史化地研究人的社會關係：透過人們的現實生活體驗以及其創造過程，將意識形態歷史化，而非將其哲學化為一套孤立的理論。馬克思主義的方法是從現實前提開始，並且致力不放棄任何一段歷史碎片，因為歷史的前提是人，若摒棄任何歷史時刻，那這種研究方法將變為一種虛幻和僵化研究方法，合理的社科研究方法是：以實質生活、可感知的歷史經驗發展為準則，描述這種積極的生命過程，使歷史不再是靜態事實，或想像的主體與想像活動的集合體。
馬克思的《德意志意識形態批判》為他《資本論》的研究鋪平了道路，後者專注於探討資本主義的本質和資本的真正面目。而馬克思轉向《資本論》的原因可以從他的《德意志意識形態批判》中的觀點推斷出來：即意識形態從人們的真實生活經驗而來，這些經驗受到物質活動和交往的影響，從而形成了思想、概念和意識。馬克思探究資本主義作為意識形態和生活方式為人帶來的傷害，包括剝削、異化和自我毀滅的傾向，以及在此社會制度下，個人如何在意識形態的範疇內再生產自身。因此，把意識形態和人的實踐分離開來的研究方法是致命的，這種背離馬克思最初的調的「意識形態和實踐不可分離」的概念：當「一切堅固的東西都煙消雲散了」，唯物主義的分析方式讓個人「能以清醒的感官面對他的真實生活狀況和他與人的關係」。這有助於解釋為什麼波伏娃在《第二性》指出的是「性別(sex)」而不是「性別(Gender)」。就正如馬克思的理論告訴我們：在「意識形態」的掩護下，曾經堅實的東西現在正在消散在資本主義的世界中，使個人不得不面對他們真實的存在條件，而要在這個世界中保持清醒的話，那就必須緊握著「實在的人」而非虛幻的人。
「性別理論」作為一種父權意識形態
有關「性別理論(Gender theories)」的研究主題集中於探討「性別關係(Gender relations)」，因此，進行這方面的研究必須採取「以性別為本」的方法。參考馬克思的術語，我們將從性別(Gender)的實質生活體驗來研究性別關係，而非從一套既有的性別研究方法來研究和理解性別的實踐。
與資本主義意識形態類似，父權意識形態對社會中的個人造成了重大的傷害。這是由於其未能揭示當前物質生產和交往的疏離性質，進一步誤導個人走向自我毀滅的行為，無法成為女性推翻父權世界秩序的手段。本文將回顧蘇維亞·沃比（Sylvia Walby）的父權制度理論和麗絲·沃格爾（Lise Vogel）的社會再生產理論，這兩者都在部分程度上都構成了「父權意識形態」的要素。
沃比（1990）的《理論化父權制度》（Theorising Patriarchy）一書深入地分析了父權制度，並辨識了形成男性支配、壓迫和剝削女性的六種社會結構。沃比的性別理論(Gender theories)建基於性別(Sex)和性別（Gender）的分別，以及性別二元系統的展演性（Performativity）與物質生產和交往關係的區分。這也是為什麼我們在研究和定義性別理論(Gender theories)語境下的「父權制度」時需要小心謹慎，因為其將現實中和歷史上的性別分工與家庭私有制所導致的對女性的壓迫，取而代之為一種天生仇女，崇拜男性並旨在剝奪了女性的自主權，而非女性生產與再生產成果以維持社會的性別二元制度。
沃比對於父權主義的理論，直接或間接受到路易斯·阿爾都塞（Louis Althusser）關於意識形態和意識形態國家機器的理論(2006)的影響，後者提出了兩種系統：壓迫的國家機器和意識形態的國家機器。針對父權主義的壓迫機器，沃比把父權主義定義為「一種社會結構和實踐的系統，在這個系統中男性支配、壓迫和剝削女性(system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women)」，並且指出了構成此系統的六重結構，包括：父權主義的生產方式、薪資勞動和父權主義關係、國家中的父權主義關係、男性暴力、性文化領域中的父權主義關係以及文化機構中的父權主義關係。Hennessy（1993）認為，沃比這種結構性分析指出了在晚期資本主義重新塑造生產和社會關係的過程中，儘管產生了破壞性的影響，但並沒有像人們想像的那樣削弱這些傳統支配系統，而是再造了這些系統。
沃比的「六重結構」理論的問題意識起源於1970年代關於「雙重體系」（即資本主義與父權主義合謀）、「三重體系」（加上種族主義）、「無差別資本主義」（即資本主義與家庭關係並無區別）、「統一理論」（即父權制並沒有消失並獨立存在於資本主義內）更為適當描述女性所遭受的壓迫的這一爭辯。透過疊加壓迫性系統，沃比成功地描繪了三位一體（資本主義、父權主義、種族主義）的形象，其中每個系統都有自己的結構，獨立而又互相依存合謀，同時也可以是私人或公共的。類似於阿多諾（1975）對文化工業的批評 : 「……文化工業無可否認地猜測著它所針對的數百萬人的有意識和無意識狀態，群眾並不是首要的，而是次要的，他們是計算的對象，是機器的附屬品。顧客不是國王，正如文化工業想讓我們相信的那樣，不是它的主體，而是它的客體。」沃比以康德式的唯心理論概念化了現實生活中的社會關係，這些在這種情況下，人成為客體，被各種社會體制打造（又或社會化）為不同的角色，例如資本家或工人、男性或女性、白人或黑人（或其他種族），而非由於社會條件和維持生活的需要，不由自主地參與到各種剝削性的關係和意識形態的再生產中。
沃比的理論是一種「社會再生產理論」，這種理論一方面強調（也因而強化）了維繫社會當前的社會關係形式。然而，這種「社會再生產」的作為一種意識形態卻限制了該理論在為被壓迫的女性解放自身方面的能力。沃比的理論是基於現實經驗進行加工的，並將資本主義、父權制和種族體系描繪為三個不同的世界，具有不同的主題，有時彼此相關。然而，它們仍然彼此分離，因為不同的系統必須獨立運作，才能把許多複雜的問題簡化，馬克思主義女性主義學家麗絲·沃格爾的著作《馬克思主義與婦女壓迫：走向統一理論》（2013）同樣也對「社會再生產理論」做出了重要貢獻，我們接下來可以看看沃格爾的理論是怎麼樣的。
馬克思主義女性主義傳統：社會再生產理論
沃格爾在書中劃分了兩種分析婦女壓迫的立場，稱之為「雙重體系(Dual system perspective)」和「社會再生產觀點(Social reproduction perspective)」。前者認為婦女的壓迫源自於她們處於一個自主的性別勞動分工(Division of labour)和男性至上的(Male supremacy)系統中，而後者則認為婦女的壓迫源於她們在整個社會再生產中的不同位置(location within the social repdocution)。 沃格爾繼續回顧恩格斯和馬克思對家庭的看法，指出恩格斯的《家庭、私有制和国家起源》（The Origin）在很大程度上依賴於雙重體系觀點(Dual system perspective)。通過為家庭分配單獨的章節，恩格斯暗示由性別勞動分工塑造的家庭類別可以被視為幾乎自主的。此外，恩格斯將性別勞動分工視為基於生物特徵而出現的，因而《起源》一書中的所有其他主要現象都被預設為具有社會基礎。因此，沃格爾對馬克思有關物質生產和交往的概念以及對人類主觀解釋的批判非常值得留心且警戒。若然讀者們記得文章之前提過的，馬克思的意識形態理論強調將主觀的思想生產與物質生產和交往相結合，這樣的研究方法才能被認為是科學的。可想而知，沃格爾對於恩格斯的批判是很值得保留的：恩格斯的《起源》（1985）並非把雙重體系作理論框架，《起源》中強調的，是沃格爾稱之為「雙重體系」——即父權制與資本主義之間的具體關係是如何發源、變化、最後發展到今天的模樣的。
人們對於社會關係的理解從來不是來自任何制度本身，而是來自不同形式的物質生產、社會交往和人類思想的生產及其相關結果之間的聯繫——我們稱之為具體的生活經驗(Lived experience)。恩格斯認為，家庭是物質交往和生產的場所，但不是一個獨立的系統。同樣，馬克思在《資本論》中認為，資本不是一種東西，而是人與人之間通過使用物品而建立的一種社會關係(A set of social relations)。在馬克思看來，資本是一種歷史性的生產關係，是社會大經濟結構的一部分，性別之間的關係對於恩格斯而言亦是如是。沃格爾（2013）批評恩格斯沒有對性別和階級衝突之間的關係提供一個清晰的理解。但是，性別和階級衝突本質上都作為社會關係辯證地存在的，恩格斯其實本就不需要對這種指出這種關係，他們本質上都是「社會關係」。
如果任何「馬克思主義者」嘗試以唯心論的方式將社會關係分類成相對於其他的系統存在的關係，認為這些關係（例如階級衝突、性別/性關係、種族制度）可以相互分離，那麼這個「馬克思主義者」需要更進一步地學習馬克思本人的文獻了。正如Bannerji（1991）所指出的那樣，社會再生產觀點由於結構主義的廣泛影響而無法理解政治主體性的角色。通過關注現有的社會結構，社會再生產女性主義者未能探索這些結構形成的過程，並失去了歷史意識。
事實上，部分馬克思主義女性主義學家也在一定程度上發現了這些不妥的地方，正如Arruzza（2014）所述，統一理論(Unitary thesis )——即沃格爾與她自己的那派馬克思主義女性主義學者的支持者不同意父權制是一個自主地再生產自身的規則和機制的想法。但是他們提出的解決方案非常奇怪，他們認為需要「了解資本積累的動態如何繼續產生、再生產、轉化和更新階級和壓迫關係，而不是用嚴格的經濟或自動化術語來表達這些機制。」馬克思本人專注於《資本論》的研究是因為資本積累過程帶來的外部危機，而性別研究應該注意的是人生活在其內部所面對的危機。馬克思主義女性主義理論家未能尋求擺脫父權意識形態再生產的出路。根據本雅明（2020）的說法，解決這種情況的關鍵是「歷史唯物主義若是背靠神學，那就戰無不勝」。正如Wendel（1968）所述：「當猶太人面臨困難時，一位年輕的荷蘭女士說：『我們每個人都必須向內心發問，必須在我們心中消滅那些我們認為必須在別人心中消滅的東西。』彌賽亞的時刻是內在的，這應該是「性別研究」作為女性主義意識形態的任務：抗擊保守的父權意識形態，使用女性主義本身成為顛覆和革命的意識形態。正如俄羅斯女性革命家Alexandra Kollontai（1909）所說：「只有通過走這條（獨立和革命的）路，女人才能實現那遙遠但迷人的目標——在一個新的勞動世界中真正解放自己。」
結論：未來作為一種意識形態
意識形態並非一種邪惡的東西——在烏托邦社會革命完成之前，人類總是需要意識形態的。我們必須懂得如何利用意識形態：它可以是解放的工具，也可以促進社會轉型。正如馬克思敏銳地觀察到的，在考察這些變革時，必須時刻把下面兩者區別開來：「一種是生產的經濟條件方面所發生的物質的、可以用自然科學的精確性指明的變革，一種是人們藉以意識到這個衝突並力求把它克服的那些法律的、政治的、宗教的、藝術的或哲學的，簡言之，意識形態的形式。我們判斷一個人不能以他對自己的看法為根據，同樣，我們判斷這樣一個變革時代也不能以它的意識為根據；相反，這個意識必須從物質生活的矛盾中，從社會生產力和生產關係之間的現存衝突中去解釋。」在接受這種辯證法的基礎上，我們必須尋求彌賽亞時刻，這是激發革命性意識形態的關鍵時刻。
特別是，性別理論作為一種意識形態框架具有潛在的作用，它可以作為被壓迫者的有力武器，讓他們識別和面對父權意識形態帶來的內在傷害。基於深厚的人類知識和高度科學的探究，這種意識形態需要嚴謹的學術研究，以及對理解和重塑世界的不懈追求。它的變革潛力是無限的，其最終目標是實現更美好、更公平的未來。
關鍵是，我們必須理解過去、現在和未來都是緊密相關的，而彌賽亞時刻始終存在。通過擁抱這種革命性的意識形態，一種有意義的變革才是可能的，屆時，未來本身就會是我們的革命意識形態。
All hitherto gender theories constitute to patriarchal ideology. This paper intends to follow Marx's reasoning and deconstruct current gender theories to reveal their true essence by describing them as an "ideology." As Marx stated, the purpose of this paper is to examine how individuals are forced to confront their real-life conditions and relationships with others when "**all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.**" (Marx, 2012)
To elucidate the term "ideology," this paper will begin by quoting some of Marx's texts. Additionally, it will explore the meaning of "gender" and discuss the implications of "ideology."
The Origins of “Sex” and “Gender”
The word "gender", as defined by Raymond Williams (2008), "had its root in general, means to 'beget', but with the related genre and genus had acquired a specialized meaning, in the case of gender almost exclusively grammatical... Yet the term had occasionally been used before outside grammar." It can be observed that prior to the 1970s, "Gender" was rarely mentioned by society, with "sex" being the more commonly used term (see figure1 and figure2). According to Williams (2008), this was due to the association of the word "sex" with "sex-objects" in the 20th century. As a result, in her feminist classic The Second Sex, written in 1949, Beauvoir referred to the concept as "sex" instead of "The Second Gender". Beauvoir used the word "engender" in her book to display the meaning of "attaching sexual characteristics". Meanwhile, the word "sex" comes from Latin sexus, -ūs, which comes from a root sec- meaning "cut" (compare section, dissect, segment). In this sense, "sex" is related to the characteristics associated with "physical characteristics" being separated, with the division of labour within the family being a major factor in separating the family from the rest of society.
Throughout The Second Sex, Beauvoir never really created a concept of "gender". According to Beauvoir, a female is not born as a woman, but rather becomes one. The identification of females as the "second sex" is learned through their daily interactions and social relationships based on material production and exchange. The differentiation of "sex" and "gender" came later with the rise of the "doing gender" theory. This separates the meaning of "sex", which refers to the actual human practice of sexuality, from "gender", which views practices as solely "objective" symbolic structures and scripts within which women adopt and perform their "female form" (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Raymond Williams explained the formal usage of gender by quoting Gladstone's "Athene has nothing of sex except the gender, nothing of the woman except the form" (1878). This not only represents the use and objectification of "gender" and separates "biological characteristics" from sexual practices but also alienates the "symbolic construction" of gender from the material world, creating the fetishism of gender.
As a result, the theory of gender has evolved into an "ideology", replacing sexual practices and relations with "gender relations" as a fixed subject matter for research. To better understand this concept, it is important to delve into the definition of the word "ideology".
Defining Ideology
Marx's (1970) conception of ideology posits that it is not merely a false perception created for self-deception or an overriding ideal imposed by ruling classes and sexes. Rather, ideology is the production of ideas and consciousness that is initially intertwined with the material activity and intercourse of individuals - the language of real life. The production of mental conceptions and ideas, as expressed in politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, and other aspects of a people's mental production, is a direct efflux of their material behaviour. Men are the producers of their own ideas, and their mental activity is conditioned by their development of productive forces and corresponding intercourse, up to their furthest forms. Consciousness is always a reflection of conscious existence, which is the actual life process of individuals.
Marx's philosophy gives rise to the unique methodology of the Marxist tradition, which ascends from earth to heaven, in contrast to German philosophy that descends from heaven to earth. The Marxist approach begins with real, active men and demonstrates the development of ideological reflexes and echoes based on their real-life process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are sublimates of their material life process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, and all other forms of consciousness and ideology are no longer considered independent; they have no history or development. Instead, men, in developing their material production and intercourse, alter their thinking and the products of their thinking along with their real existence. Life is not determined by consciousness, but rather consciousness is determined by life.
Hence, according to Marx’s perspective, the subject matter of sociology is the historicization of all ideology by the real-life experience of people and their creation process, rather than being philosophized into theory. The Marxist method of approach starts from real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions. Describing this active life process causes history to cease being a collection of dead facts or imagined activity of imagined subjects.
Marx's research on the critique of German Ideology paved the way for his work on Das Kapital, which focuses on the nature of capitalism and the true nature of capital. The reasons for Marx's shift to Das Kapital can be inferred from his view that ideology is subordinated to the real-life experiences of people, which are shaped by material activity and intercourse, leading to the formation of ideas, concepts, and consciousness. Marx's inquiry into how individuals can reproduce themselves within the realm of ideology, and the consequences of capitalism as an ideology and way of life, including exploitative relationships, alienation, and self-destructive tendencies, underscore the importance of avoiding efforts to separate ideology from human practices.
Such an approach would be a fatal error, as it would betray Marx's original intention to enable individuals to "face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind" when "all that is solid melts into air." This helps explain why Beauvoir associated The Second Sex with the concept of "sex" rather than "gender," as Marx's story reveals that under the guise of "ideology," what was once solid is now dissipating in the capitalist world, leaving individuals to confront their real conditions of existence.
“Gender theories” as a Patriarchal Ideology
It is important to note that the subject matter of "gender theories" is centered around the study of "gender relations." As such, a necessary prerequisite for this research is a "gender-based" approach. Drawing from Marx's terminology, it is essential to ascend from actual practices to gender relations, rather than descending from gender relations to actual practices, as is commonly done in gender theory philosophy.
Patriarchal ideology, similar to capitalist ideology, poses significant harm to individuals within society. This is due to its failure to expose the alienating nature of current material production and intercourse. Furthermore, it misguides individuals towards self-destructive behaviour and cannot serve as a means for women to overturn the patriarchal world order. This essay will review Sylvia Walby's theory on patriarchy and Lise Vogel's theory on the social reproduction system, both of which constitute elements of the "patriarchal ideology."
Sylvia Walby: The Six Patriarchy structures
The book Theorising Patriarchy by Walby (1990) presents an insightful analysis of patriarchy and identifies six structures that form the system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women. Walby's work reflects the importance of considering real-life experiences and subjective interpretation in understanding patriarchy. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that subjective interpretation is not immune to biases and must be carefully scrutinized. Gender theory, which seeks to distinguish sex from gender and the performative aspects of the binary system from material production and material intercourse, has a relatively short history compared to the long-standing discourse on sexual liberation. However, it is critical to exercise caution in defining "patriarchy," as it has the potential to fetishize and objectify the male-female binary system.
Indeed, Walby's theory appears to be directly or indirectly influenced by the French Marxist theorist Louis Althusser's theory on Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (2006), which generates two systems: oppressive state apparatuses (violence suppression) and ideological state apparatuses (ideology promotion). For example, Hennessy (1993) pointed out that "implicit in this assertion is the argument advanced by recent feminist work, like that of Sylvia Walby, which contends that the reconfiguration of relations of production under late capitalism, for all of its atomizing effects on social arrangements, has not eroded these systems of domination so much as it has rescripted them.
While Walby's six structures question also originated from the 1970s debate on whether it is a "Dual (Capitalism, Patriarchy) or Triple Systems (plus racial system) Theory", "Indifferent Capitalism" where capital relationship is no different from a family relationship, or "Unitary Thesis" where Patriarchal relations continue to exist but without being part of a separate system (Arruzza, 2014), it was redefined by Walby by adding a third system, the racial system. Walby sought to understand patriarchy as a variable system of social relations composed of six structures: the patriarchal mode of production, patriarchal relations in wage labor and salaried labor, patriarchal relations in the State, male violence, patriarchal relations in the sphere of sexuality, and patriarchal relations in cultural institutions. These six structures reciprocally condition each other while remaining autonomous, and they can also be either private or public (Arruzza, 2014).
By adding systems, Walby successfully portrays the image of the Holy Trinity, with each system having its own structure. In this sense, a Kantian idealistic approach is processed with real-life experience, i.e., social relations. Capitalism, patriarchy, and the racial system are separated into three different worlds with different subject matters that sometimes might correlate with each other, yet in nature, they are still "separated" since different systems must work independently.
In summary, Walby's theory could be characterized as a "social reproduction theory" that the "Holy Trinity" helps to maintain, in other words, reproduce the current social relations of society. However, the "social reproduction" nature limits the ability of the theory to play a role as a compass for the oppressed female.
Furthermore, another important figure in the "social reproduction theory" is Marxist-feminist Lise Vogel and her book Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory (2013).
Marxist Feminist Tradition: Social Reproduction Theory
In her book, Vogel (2013) distinguishes between two perspectives on the analysis of women's oppression: the "dual-systems perspective" and the "social reproduction perspective." The former posits that women's oppression derives from their situation within an autonomous system of sex divisions of labor and male supremacy, while the latter argues that women's oppression has its roots in their differential location within social reproduction as a whole.
Vogel notes that Engels' work in The Origin of the Family relies heavily on the dual-systems perspective, as he assigns a separate chapter to the family, implying that it can be considered virtually autonomously. Furthermore, Engels regards the sex division of labor as biologically based and historically inflexible, in contrast to the social foundations of all other major phenomena in the book.
However, this interpretation of Engels' work ignores the linkage between the so-called "dual system." Marx emphasized the importance of subjective idea production and material production and intercourse in order for a theory to be considered "scientific," and Engels' Origins (1985) also places significant emphasis on this linkage. Thus, Vogel's dissection of Marx's idea of material production and intercourse in relation to Engels' work is not entirely accurate.
The subjective matter is not the system itself but the connection between various material production, intercourse, human production of ideas, and their outcomes. According to Engels' interpretation, the family serves as a place for material intercourse and production but not as a system, similar to Marx's repetition in Das Kapital, stating that "capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things," and "Capital is a social relation of production. It is a historical relation of production." Vogel (2013) accuses Engels of never achieving a clear picture of the connection between sex- and class-conflict, although both conflicts exist dialectically as social relations. As Marx explains, "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness."
If any "Marxist" attempts to separate social relations into other relations with an idealistic approach, believing that any of the relations (i.e. class conflict, gender/sex relations, racial system) can be separated from one another, that "Marxist" needs to study Marx further. As Bannerji (1991) notes, the social reproduction view fails to understand the role of political subjectivity because of the structuralism's vast influence. By focusing on existing social structures, social reproduction feminists fail to explore the processes of how these structures are formed and lose a sense of history.
However, Marxist feminist theorists did notice this problem, as Arruzza (2014) states that the proponents of the "unitary theory" disagree with the idea that patriarchy is a system of rules and mechanisms that autonomously reproduce themselves. Still, their solution is peculiar, which is "to understand how the dynamic of capital accumulation continues to produce, reproduce, transform, and renew hierarchical and oppressive relations, without expressing these mechanisms in strictly economic or automatic terms." Marx works on Das Kapital because of the external crisis of capitalism, while sex studies should be an internal one. Marxist-feminist theorists failed to seek a way out of the reproduction of patriarchal ideology. According to Benjamin (2020), the key to the way out of this situation is "historical materialism" to win all the time. It can quickly match anyone if it enlists the services of theology. As Wendel (1968) states, "When Jewish people faced difficulties, a young Netherlands lady said, 'each of us must turn inward, must destroy in our hearts that which we think must be destroyed in the hearts of others.' The Messiah moment is internal, and this should be the mission of "gender studies" as a feminist ideology rather than a patriarchal ideology. As Russian female revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai (1909) had stated, "only by taking this (independent and revolutionary) path is the woman able to achieve that distant but alluring aim – her true liberation in a new world of labour."
Conclusion: The Future as an Ideology
Ideology should not always be viewed as an antagonist. Rather, it can be a tool of liberation and a catalyst for societal transformation. As Marx (1859) astutely observed, “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.” Embracing this dialectic, we must seek out the Messiah moment, a crucial juncture for inspiring revolutionary change.
In particular, gender theories as an ideological framework have the potential to function as a potent weapon for the oppressed, allowing them to identify and confront the internalized harm wrought by patriarchal ideology. Grounded in a deep wellspring of human knowledge and premised on a high level of scientific inquiry, this ideology demands rigorous scholarship and a relentless dedication to understanding and reshaping the world. Its transformative potential is boundless, and its ultimate aim is the realization of a better, more equitable future for all.
Crucially, we must understand that the past, present, and future are all intertwined, and that the Messiah moment is ever-present. By embracing this revolutionary ideology, we can catalyse meaningful change and realize a better tomorrow. Let us unite in our pursuit of a world that is just, equitable, and free, and let us use ideology as a powerful tool for achieving this transformative goal.
Reference:
Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). *The anthropology of the state: A reader*, *9*(1), 86-98.
Arruzza, C. (2014). *Remarks on gender*. Remarks on Gender - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine. Retrieved November 13, 2022, from [https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3718](https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3718)
Beauvoir, S. de, Borde, C., & Malovany-Chevallier, S. (2011). The second sex (1st *Vintage Books* ed.). Vintage Books.
Benjamin, W. (2020). Theses on the Philosophy of History. In *Critical theory and society a reader* (pp. 255-263). Routledge.
Bloch, E., Plaice, N., Plaice, S., & Knight, P. (1986). *The principle of hope* (Vol. 3, pp. 1938-47). Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
Engels, F. (1985). *The origin of the family, private property, and the state*. Viking Press.
HENNESSY, R. (1993), Women's Lives /Feminist Knowledge: Feminist Standpoint as Ideology Critique. *Hypatia*, 8: 14-34. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00626.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00626.x)
Kollontai, A.(1909). The social basis of the woman question. *Consultado* el, 22.
Marx, K. (1859). Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. *The Marx-Engels Reader*, *2*, 3-6.
Marx, K. (2004). *Capital: volume I* (Vol. 1). Penguin UK.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). *The german ideology* (Vol. 1). International Publishers Co.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). *The communist manifesto: A modern edition*. Verso Books.
Moltmann-Wendel. (1986). A land flowing with milk and honey : perspectives on feminist theology. Crossroad.
Vogel. (2013). Marxism and the oppression of women toward a unitary theory. Brill.
Walby. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. B. Blackwell.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. *Gender & society*, *1*(2), 125-151.
Williams, R. (2014). *Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society*. Oxford University Press.
留言
發佈留言