The Production of Divisions: Gender Struggles under Capitalism MARTHA E. GIMENEZ ccording to Lebowitz (1992), Capital was one-sided and incomplete because it dealt with the side of capital and excluded, among other things, the consideration of the side of wage labor. From his standpoint, to consider the side of wage labor requires the treatment of workers as subjects and this, in turn, requires the examination of the process of reproduction of labor power and of the living owners of labor power: the workers themselves. In the process of selfreproduction, workers consume use values to which they have access through a variety of channels, among which domestic or private pro- duction is the most important. The examination of domestic relations yields the concept of a domestic mode of production where male work- crs exploit/ oppress women and children, and females are, for all practi- cal purposes, domestic servants, These domestic relations, in turn, are part of the material basis for the different interests dividing male and female workers and one of the main contexts in which they become political subjects. The identities workers develop in the process of repro- ducing themselves daily and generationally are enormously important to an understanding of the forms and directions taken by political struggles. Tagree with the need to examine workers not only as objects for capital but also as subjects. I also agree with the importance of the do- mestic setting in the formation of political subjects. The focus of my dis- cussion is the examination of the capitalist determinants of gender andGIMENEZ © 257 other divisions within the working class, and the implications of these divisions for political struggles and the reproduction of capitalism. Some of the assumptions underlying my arguments are the follow- ing: 1, The absence ofa book on wage labor may make Marx's work one- sided (in the dialectical sense) but not “deterministic.” Marx's theory cannot be appropriately characterized as a theory that leaves no room for agency, for people do make history, though they do not choose the circumstances or the elements with which they make it. Marx's work captures both the recalcitrance of social structures that constrain actions and ideas and, at the same time, the contradictory and changeable nature of those structures that open up the space for the emergence of subjects aiming not only to reproduce them but to transform them. 2. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx (1970, 3) reminds us that nature, besides labor, is also a source of use value, thus stressing the material foundations of the capital-labor relation. Likewise, in the analysis of the reproduction of wage labor, it is important to acknowl- edge the mediating role of biology, which cannot be reduced to its “so- cial construction.” Hunger, sexuality, childbirth, dependency during childhood and old age, vulnerability to disease and death are irreduc- ible to thought. These material aspects of the human condition are the basis for fundamental political demands as well as for the emergence of social relations and forms of consciousness whose power resides precisely in the immediacy and materiality of their foundations (Timpanaro 1975). 3. We don’t construct reality, we transform it, and in the process there is both transcendence and preservation of that which is trans- formed. This is another way of stating Marx's point about the conditions under which people make history. Current intellectual fashions (i.¢., social constructionism and the tendency to privilege agency over structure) neglect, in my view, the extent to which conditions not of people’s choos- ing permeate their active involvement in processes aimed at times at reproducing the status quo, and at other times at challenging it and chang- ing it (Bhaskar 1989, 66-88). 4. My standpoint is critical of universal patriarchy theories and of dualisms positing an independent patriarchal or gender system “inter- acting” with capitalism. In my view, gender and other politically relevant social divisions are “universal concretes"—that is, phenomena with spe- cifically capitalist origins and conditions of reproduction (Gimenez 1982). 5, My standpointis also critical of the politics of identity if isolated from class politics. There is a positive side to the emergence of the so- called new social movements, for they challenge long-standing practices of economic exploitation, social oppression, political domination, and258 PART FOUR: Feminism, Race, Sexuality, ond Nature environmental degradation. The negative side is the strengthening of divisions among workers. These divisions are reinforced by government policies of racial classification and data collection and dissemination, and by the labeling of these groups as interest groups, each in conflict with the others. The ideology of civil rights also reinforces these divisions, due to the belief that the worse effects of class exploitation and oppression— which fall disproportionately upon women workers and populations clas- sified as nonwhite, so that they are perceived primarily as the effects of sexism and racism—can be fully redressed through civil rights legislation and litigation. This encourages the formation and maintenance of vic- timized identities seeking redress through new laws and the courts (Bumiller 1988). It also encourages the resurgence of white supremacist movements and the self-perception of “majority” workers as “whites,” thus strengthening the divisions that weaken even further the American working class. THE CAPITALIST PRODUCTION OF GENDER DIVISIONS Outside their relationship to capital, wage workers differ in many ways. Among those differences, gender is perhaps the most pervasive and important. It would also seem to be the most concrete, the most real. Once gender, as a category of analysis, penetrates one's consciousness, itis difficult to think about gender inequality without focusing on male/ female differences (biological, psychological, physical, social, etc.) and male/female intentions, goals, interests, and so on. This mode of thought compels us to think in terms of men versus women, patriarchy, domes- tic exploitation, and similar dichotomous dynamics. But to attain a fuller grasp of the relevance of gender divisions and struggles for the political future of the working class, it is necessary to leave behind the notion of gender as being primarily an individual attribute and to cxamine stead, as the observable effect of underlying social relations of physical and social reproduction. Given that, dialectically, production and repro- duction are two moments of the same process (Engels 1970, 5), it fol- lows that the material basis of the phenomenon conceptualized as gen- der divisions is inextricably historical and specific to the mode of production. These social relations, like class relations, are not forms of social interaction or intersubjective relations; they are structures independent from individuals’ consciousness; they set boundaries to their opportu- nity structures and interaction, thus affecting their forms of conscious- ness. The sexual division of labor within and outside households, differ-GIMENED |) 259 ences in men’s and women's socioeconomic status and relative social and political power, and so on, are the observable and measurable effects of underlying relations of reproduction that are neither visible nor intersubjective, because they are mediated by men’s and women’s rela- tionship to the means of production and to the conditions of biological, physical, and social reproduction. Iam referring to the network of social relations within which social classes are reproduced daily and gener- ationally, namely, relations of procreation and of physical and social reproduction (Gimenez 1992). Under capitalist conditions, the organization of production deter- mines the organization of reproduction. To postulate only interaction, giving equal causal weight to production and reproduction would, in my view, overlook the fact that the driving force of capitalism is capital ac- cumulation, rather than the satisfaction of needs, While under socialism the goals of reproduction would have causal primacy, because produc- tion would be organized to satisfy needs, it is the case that we live under capitalism, where production for profit comes first and people's mate- rial and spiritual needs are satisfied only in so far as their satisfaction is profitable. The subordination of the satisfaction of needs to profit maxi- mization is an aspect of the subordination of reproduction (which is part of the material basis for gender relations) to commodity production and the maintenance of capitalist class relations. In advanced capitalist societies, the biological, physical, and social reproduction of wage and salary earners takes place through relations that vary within the limits set by the effects of almost universalized com- modity production, advanced proletarianization, unemployment, and underemployment. At any given time, a substantial proportion of the population can only have access to the material conditions for reproduc- tion either through claims upon the resources of wage/salary earners, state provision, private charity, petty commodity production of goods and services for local markets, or some combination thereof. The “genderization” of biological males and females is constantly produced and reproduced through the survival strategies propertyless people develop under these circumstances and through the correspond- ing sexual division of labor. It is through marriage and kinship bonds thata large proportion of women and those too young or too old to work, the sick, the disabled, and the unemployed can have access to the condi- tions necessary for their physical and social reproduction. In the sphere of production, male and female workers compete for employment, a com- petition that is real, though tempered by occupational sex-typing. In the sphere of reproduction, men and women establish contradictory rela- tions of cooperation and domination within the “family,” the most wide-260 | PART FOUR: Feminism, Roce, Sexvolity, and Noture spread survival strategy, which allows women and children to have ac- cess to goods and services through their connection to an employed male. The dynamics of production both set the basis for family formation as a desirable strategy and, at the same time, undermine it; depending on socioeconomic status, levels of employment, and wages, family forma- tion becomes increasingly undesirable, unstable, or unattainable for grow- ing proportions of the population, Buta focus on “the family” is unproductive because other strategies can then be perceived either as deviations from it or as successful chal- lenges. Arguments for or against “diversity in family forms” cloud the issue and keep discourse within the confines of the relationships between “the family” and other institutions, The focus should be on the organi- zation of social reproduction and the changing networks of relations between the sexes and the generations that the development of the forces of production and reproduction make possible at a given time. The methodological, ideological and political implications of this theoretical standpoint are the following. Methodologically, gender inequality as a principle of social stratifi- cation is irreducible to micro foundations; that is, it cannot be explained on the basis of men's physiology, psychology, or intentionality because it is the structural effect of a complex network of macrolevel processes that have to do with the articulation between the spheres of production and reproduction, This network establishes parameters for the relations between men and women that allocate the latter primarily to the sphere of domestic/ reproductive labor and only secondarily to waged or sala- ried labor, thus creating the material basis for differences in the relative economic, social, and political power of the sexes. It is true, on the other hand, that specific manifestations of gender inequality within firms, house- holds, institutions, and so on are not only amenable to reduction to micro foundations but require it. Ideologically, the social organization of reproduction produces the “genderization” of males and females. It establishes the conditions for the effectivity of preexisting ideologies and practices about the proper attributes and behavior of men and women, as well as of the emergence of new ones. Politically, given that consciousness reflects, in fundamental ways, our direct experiences and that we experience only the effects of the relations of reproduction, what we experience and observe are concrete instances of men’s economic, political, and sexual dominance, in both the so-called public and private spheres, The theoretical and political effect has been that of reinforcing a problematic of men versus women, the critique of the family, the elaboration of theories of patriarchy, andGIMENEZ | 261 the conceptualization of women’s oppression as something all women share, as the basis for sisterhood. This understanding of the effects of the relations of reproduction ve because it overlooks the existence of privileged women leged men. Theories about what is and is not in the inter- est of all “women” are vulnerable to critiques indicating that women's experiences, interests, and power vary according to social class, socio- economic status, ethnicity, and race. These are objective differences that do not disappear with changes in women’s consciousness. While women undoubtedly share some common interests around issues of sexuality and procreation, even these cannot be taken for granted as a basis for shared political objectives (see, ¢.g., Luker 1984). Individual women may have more in common with men and women of their own class, race, ethnicity, than with all other women. And it is in the interest of privi- leged women and capitalist/corporate class women that the status quo remain unchanged; otherwise, who would do their housework, mind their children, and manage their households? Today feminists rejoice at the increase in the number of women who reach top places in the profes- sional, corporate, and political structures. Their ability to do so rests upon their extensive use of domestic help and ability to purchase high quality child care, But the use of domestic servants is not limited to the very wealthy, Most working women who can afford to do so hire domestic workers on a part- or full-time basis, Civil rights victories are not suffi- cient to eradicate the existence of class, racial, and ethnic divisions among women, nor the fact that some women are oppressed and exploited by other women. Racial and ethnic divisions enter into the process of domestic re- production of wage labor but they are not generated by it. The racial and ethnic heterogeneity of the population of advanced capitalist coun- ties is the result of past processes of colonization, enslavement, and international migration generated by the exploitation of semiperiphery and periphery countries by core states and transnational capital. Chang- ing practices of racial and ethnic classification as well as processes of assimilation periodically change the racial/ethnic composition of the population (Gimenez 1988), What remains is the heritage of racism, second-class citizenship, economic exploitation, and social exclusion. Racial and ethnic populations are in turn divided in terms of class and gender. The process of the reproduction of wage labor takes place along the lines of processes that perpetuate gender, racial, and ethnic divisions as integral components of individual workers’ identities. There is a contradiction between capitalist ideologies about politi- cal, legal, civil equality, and equality of opportunity, and capitalism's262 | PART FOUR: Feminism, Roce, Sexuality, and Nature inherent tendency to reproduce and deepen socioeconomic inequality over time. The genderization of the population, like its racialization and ethnicization, are processes that legitimate capitalist inequalities and obscure the contradiction between chronic inequality and univer- salistic and egalitarian hegemonic ideologies. Gender, race, and ethnicity serve as criteria for the allocation, often through processes of “free” self- selection, of certain workers to less desirable jobs. Their presence there can thus be legitimated on the grounds of their gender (or racial/ ethnic) characteristics. These characteristics are reproduced over time, across the generations, through practices protected by abstract political and civil rights (e.g., parents’ right to socialize their children as they see fit and the right of racial/ethnic groups to preserve their culture). The private reproduction of gender (and other) differences is an integral part of the reproduction of social inequality in a context that ideologically extols the virtues of equal rights and equality of opportunity (Wallerstein 1991). In the long term, the political implications of these divisions are detrimental for the well-being of most workers, though in the short term they may yield some benefits and advantages, especially to those in the middle and upper middle strata. The tendency among some in the Left to dismiss gender, racial, and ethnic politics as forms of false conscious- ness has been met with the tendency to see these politics of identity as more genuine and effective than the politics of class. To make matters more complicated, gender divisions are supported and reproduced over time by the unyielding organization of reproduction. Racial and ethnic divisions, particularly the latter, are more amenable to change. On the other hand, the attainment of racial and ethnic equality both legally and in practice, so that white and nonwhite workers have the same probabil- ity of being poor, would not undermine the capitalist organization of social reproduction and, consequently, gender inequality. CONCLUSION No challenges to the politics of identity are likely to be successful as long as people continue to believe that all that is needed to solve their prob- lems is effective legislation. Gender, racial, and ethnic grievances are also forms in which people become conscious of “the hidden injuries of class” and it is therefore important to go beyond political standpoints that view class, gender, race, and ethnicity as discrete, mutually exclusive phenom- ena. The alternative, that everything is “gendered” or “raced” or “ethnicized” is a play on words rather than a substantive advance in one’s understanding of the connections among these levels of analysis. Eco-GIMENEZ | 263 nomic restructuring has radically altered the prospects and opportuni- ties of the American working class, exacerbating the competition for well- paid jobs while sinking a larger proportion of the population into pov- erty and near poverty. In this context, gender and racial/ethnic conflicts are intensified while the real grievances of white workers remain invis- ible within the dominant political discourse, something that strengthens racism and sexism and often generates self-destructive and violent behavior. The political and legal abolition of gender, racial, and ethnic barri- ers to full admission to citizenship, employment opportunities, and the “heavenly life” of the political community does not abolish them as con- tinuing dimensions of social life, for they are ongoing effects of material practices rooted in the capitalist mode of production (Marx 1975, 149-156). Consequently, political struggles designed to push to the lim- its the expansion of civil rights legislation might have important pol cal effects because the limits of political emancipation could, to some degree, become obvious to people not just in theory but in their own experiences. I know that in reasoning in this way I leave myself open to charges of “class reductionism” and worse. It is my view that political efforts to avoid the straw man of “class reductionism” have led to fragmented theo- retical and political analyses of class experiences and the forms in which people experience their class situation. This is reinforced by the state- sponsored production, though the Bureau of the Census and other offi- cial sources of data, of statistics that classify people primarily in terms of race, ethnicity, age, and gender. These categories have acquired a facticity that pervades contemporary consciousness. The power of these reifications is evident in the difficulties involved in trying to overcome them theoretically and in practice. In the growing literature on diver- sity, the sources of diversity are kept separate from class and are linked to class and the mode of production through contingent or external, rather than internal or necessary, relations (Ollman 1993; Sayer 1984, 82-87). We need educational, research, and political practices that en- deavor to transcend these reifications by bringing up the commonality of interests among people who appear to have irreconcilable opposing interests. 1am not minimizing nor denying the reality of gender, racial, and ethnic divisions nor their effects on people's lives; but, in isolation from the other fundamental relations that affect people's opportunity structures, gender, race, and ethnicity become, in my view, one-sided, reified categories of analysis that identify taxonomic collectives rather than theoretically significant and politically effective groups. Vicente Navarro once wrote that we need statistics that unite people, not statistics that divide people. We also need scholarship that unites24 PART FOUR: Fi . Race, Sexuality, and Nature people, highlighting the common class determinants of the opportunity structures and changing fates of the poor, the near poor, the “new poor,” single mothers, “nonwhite” workers, poor children, poor elderly people, the downwardly mobile, the employed, the unemployed, the “middle class,” and the growing numbers of temporary, disposable workers. To consider the side of wage labor entails, therefore, not just the intellectual goal of elucidating the structural determinants of the exist- ing divisions among workers but the political goal of using our intellec- tual skills to elaborate the badly needed theoretical/ political discourse that overcomes the so-called postmodern fragmentation of the subject by bringing clearly and to the fore the commonalities all these popula- tions share. By elaborating a politics of reproduction, concerned with the need of all workers for jobs, for decent wages, for stable and safe working conditions, for housing, health care, education, and an old age without indignities, we can begin to overcome in thought the divisions that need to be overcome in practice. REFERENCES Bhaskar, R. 1989. Reclaiming Reality. A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Phi- losophy. London: Verso. Bumiller, K. 1988. The Civil Rights Society. The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Engels, F. 1970. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: International Publishers. Gimenez, M. E. 1982. “The Oppression of Women. A Structuralist Marxist View.” In Structural Sociology, ed. 1. Rossi, 292-324, New York: Columbia University Press. ——. 1992. “The Mode of Reproduction in Transition: A Marxist-Feminist Analysis of the Effects of Reproductive Technologies.” Gender and Society 5 (3): 334-350. ——. 1988. “Minorities and the World-System. The Theoretical and Political Implications of the Internationalization of Minorities.” In Racism, Sexism, and the WorldSystem, ed. J. Smith, J. Collins, T. K. Hopkins, and A. Muhammad, 39-56. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Lebowitz, M. A. 1992, Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class. New York: St. Martin's Press. Luker, K. 1984. Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press. Marx, K. 1970. Critique of the Gotha Programme. New York: International Pub- lishers. ——. 1975. “On the Jewish Question.” In Collected Works, Vol. 3, K. Marx and F. Engels, 146-174. New York: International Publishers. Oliman, B. 1998. Dialectical Investigations. New York: Routledge.GIMENEZ — 265 Sayer, A. 1984. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London: Hutchingson & Co. ‘Timpanaro, S. 1975. On Materialism. London: NLB. Wallerstein, I. 1991. “The Construction of Peoplehood: Racism, Nationalism, Ethnicity.” In Race, Nation, Class, Ambiguous Identities, ed. E. Balibar and 1. Wallerstein, 71-85, London: Verso.