This book, a classic feminist polemic from philosopher Susan Moller Okin, was, I'll admit, not read by free choice but is the core text for an essay I've been bashing out over the last several days. As such, as is generally the case when I'm writing posts about books I've already written loads about, I'll be brief. It's a good book though.*
Okin's aim throughout the book is effectively applying feminist critiques to theories of political justice, to show their insufficiency in properly accounting for an equitable society once we realise that women are in the picture. She opens with a compelling argument that the family, the smallest unit within which sociological power relations form and function, is not beyond the scope of political theories of justice. Then turning to prominent theories of justice to see how well they can adapt to this, she all but guts the tradition-based and shared-value-based systems of communitarianism on the grounds that they allow for existing patriarchal dominance to retain its power; libertarianism fares even worse, with its core concepts of self-ownership and property rights implying a ridiculous dystopia of matriarchal slavery were reproduction as an activity to be brought within the considerations of its radical individualism. Communitarianism and libertarianism then, to be plausible as theories of social justice, must undergo enormous adaptation to explain where women fit in.
More plausible though is liberalism, specifically John Rawls's model. Rawlsian justice entails placing people behind a 'veil of ignorance', such that they do not know what societal characteristics they will have - any class, race, ability, opinion, or similar endowment that would affect how well they'll cope with whatever benefits or responsibilities an average role in society, is unknown to them, and as such, their deliberations about how best to structure the society they're about to enter will be unanimously in favour of ensuring fair equality of opportunity for everyone, especially those with the least advantage. (I know it's complex, it's philosophy, sorry - check out the link above for a better academic explanation.) Unfortunately for women, Rawls neglected to mention sex as one of these characteristics that would be left unknown! Okin argues that with the small step of adding that to the pile of morally-contingent factors behind the 'veil of ignorance', the deciders of justice would radically widen the scope of their notions of how best to allocate certain gender-associative responsibilities and benefits, such as the division of labour between income-earnings of [men's] work, and unpaid homekeeping and childcare roles [women's] work. Family structures would be reshaped completely, making space in both public work and domestic work for men and women to take up equal parts in each, breaking down the dichotomy between the spheres, and fundamentally challenging the oppressive dominative norms of the patriarchy whereby assumptions made about people based on their biological sex determine their liberties. Effectively, to achieve social justice we would abolish gender.
She follows this argument with a statistical and sociological overview of some of the real sources and outcomes of female vulnerability within existing marital structures - if you're not convinced that gender norms as they currently stand are bad for women, check out this chapter and maybe also this other book - and a final chapter proposing some steps that could be taken policy-wise to establishing a future society free of the constraints of gender.
Okin's call for the complete removal of a normative institution older than human history is then very much in touch with the feminist-tumblr zeitgeist. That said though, contemporary feminists (largely bloggers rather than philosophers)** tend to take up arms to this cause on the grounds of individual identity formation, whereas she took a much sturdier, more objective route. She has laid out a dazzlingly-argued case about how we can best achieve socioeconomic justice, considering the allocations of independence, responsibility, prestige, and security in how we balance family and work. In terms of how well it makes its point, it's probably one of the best, most coherent, most potent books I've ever read. Susan Moller Okin has completely convinced me that gender shouldn't be a thing - and that's not to say I didn't wrestle with it, because I tried. If you have any interest in issues of sex and gender, or more widely of sociopolitical justice, this book should definitely be on your list.
* I feel also like its smell deserves a mention. If you're the kind of person who appreciates a good-smelling book then you'd have loved the pervasive woody waft of this particular copy. Perhaps because it's been sat unopened for up to twenty-six years (nah, someone must have taken it out at some point, even though there are seventeen other copies of it) - if you're really keen, and also happen to be fortunate enough to be a student at Sheffield Uni, you can go find and sniff it in the IC. Though I realise following a blogger's advice of seeking out a book for the sole purpose of smelling it may be weird, so while you're there take it out and read it.
** In case this comes across the wrong way, let me clarify - yes, of course I intend to be disparaging towards tumblr-culture. Like most internet subcultures, it annoys me. That doesn't in the slightest detract from how much I approvingly support the resurgence of interest in and importance of feminism to public discussion though.
Okin's aim throughout the book is effectively applying feminist critiques to theories of political justice, to show their insufficiency in properly accounting for an equitable society once we realise that women are in the picture. She opens with a compelling argument that the family, the smallest unit within which sociological power relations form and function, is not beyond the scope of political theories of justice. Then turning to prominent theories of justice to see how well they can adapt to this, she all but guts the tradition-based and shared-value-based systems of communitarianism on the grounds that they allow for existing patriarchal dominance to retain its power; libertarianism fares even worse, with its core concepts of self-ownership and property rights implying a ridiculous dystopia of matriarchal slavery were reproduction as an activity to be brought within the considerations of its radical individualism. Communitarianism and libertarianism then, to be plausible as theories of social justice, must undergo enormous adaptation to explain where women fit in.
More plausible though is liberalism, specifically John Rawls's model. Rawlsian justice entails placing people behind a 'veil of ignorance', such that they do not know what societal characteristics they will have - any class, race, ability, opinion, or similar endowment that would affect how well they'll cope with whatever benefits or responsibilities an average role in society, is unknown to them, and as such, their deliberations about how best to structure the society they're about to enter will be unanimously in favour of ensuring fair equality of opportunity for everyone, especially those with the least advantage. (I know it's complex, it's philosophy, sorry - check out the link above for a better academic explanation.) Unfortunately for women, Rawls neglected to mention sex as one of these characteristics that would be left unknown! Okin argues that with the small step of adding that to the pile of morally-contingent factors behind the 'veil of ignorance', the deciders of justice would radically widen the scope of their notions of how best to allocate certain gender-associative responsibilities and benefits, such as the division of labour between income-earnings of [men's] work, and unpaid homekeeping and childcare roles [women's] work. Family structures would be reshaped completely, making space in both public work and domestic work for men and women to take up equal parts in each, breaking down the dichotomy between the spheres, and fundamentally challenging the oppressive dominative norms of the patriarchy whereby assumptions made about people based on their biological sex determine their liberties. Effectively, to achieve social justice we would abolish gender.
She follows this argument with a statistical and sociological overview of some of the real sources and outcomes of female vulnerability within existing marital structures - if you're not convinced that gender norms as they currently stand are bad for women, check out this chapter and maybe also this other book - and a final chapter proposing some steps that could be taken policy-wise to establishing a future society free of the constraints of gender.
Okin's call for the complete removal of a normative institution older than human history is then very much in touch with the feminist-tumblr zeitgeist. That said though, contemporary feminists (largely bloggers rather than philosophers)** tend to take up arms to this cause on the grounds of individual identity formation, whereas she took a much sturdier, more objective route. She has laid out a dazzlingly-argued case about how we can best achieve socioeconomic justice, considering the allocations of independence, responsibility, prestige, and security in how we balance family and work. In terms of how well it makes its point, it's probably one of the best, most coherent, most potent books I've ever read. Susan Moller Okin has completely convinced me that gender shouldn't be a thing - and that's not to say I didn't wrestle with it, because I tried. If you have any interest in issues of sex and gender, or more widely of sociopolitical justice, this book should definitely be on your list.
* I feel also like its smell deserves a mention. If you're the kind of person who appreciates a good-smelling book then you'd have loved the pervasive woody waft of this particular copy. Perhaps because it's been sat unopened for up to twenty-six years (nah, someone must have taken it out at some point, even though there are seventeen other copies of it) - if you're really keen, and also happen to be fortunate enough to be a student at Sheffield Uni, you can go find and sniff it in the IC. Though I realise following a blogger's advice of seeking out a book for the sole purpose of smelling it may be weird, so while you're there take it out and read it.
** In case this comes across the wrong way, let me clarify - yes, of course I intend to be disparaging towards tumblr-culture. Like most internet subcultures, it annoys me. That doesn't in the slightest detract from how much I approvingly support the resurgence of interest in and importance of feminism to public discussion though.
No comments:
Post a Comment