Summary of chapter 9 of Social Reproduction Theory,

Body Politics: The Social Reproduction of Sexualities

Tithi Battacharya, the author introduces the chapter, Body Politics: The Social Reproduction of
Sexualities through the concept of sexual revolutions and how despite the changes it has brought to the
social spaces of sexuality, the gendered and sexualized lives haven’t been completely emancipated.

The author brings in the argument of Breanne Fahs, professor of Women and Gender Studies at Arizona
State University, who points out two important criteria for achieving real sexual liberation. The first one
being that real sexual liberation must include the freedom of being able to engage in rich and mutually
satisfying sexual relations and the second one being freedom from sexual coercion and violence. The
author supports her argument by pointing out how we have a long way from meeting either of the
criteria given.

Tithi explains how the sexual revolutions did not really invalidate the dominant normative sexualities
but rather made a shift in the boundaries of the same to include other sexual practices as acceptable
such as same-sex couples, nonmarital relations and trans rights to some degree.

The author explains her main focus on the article being the general dynamics of sexuality with respect to
capitalist reproduction.

The main argument of this chapter is that the social reproduction frame provides important tools for
understanding the constant existence of heteronormativity throughout the process of sexual
revolutions.

It is explained how the obstacles to achieve full sexual liberation revolves not only around the restricted
perception of what entails sexual freedom, which leads the way to equal rights being made as a
sufficient ground for freedom .

The author explains how the weakened vision of what sexual freedom entails which has been produced
by sexual revolutions has been set up as a ground for “free” labor under capitalism. That is, these “free”
labors are free in a sense that they can dispose their labor power as their own commodity, but on the
other hand they have no other commodity for sale, forcing these laborers to sell their labor power to an
employer, who possesses the means for production.

Tithi points out how this combination of consent and compulsion forming the basic labor relations under
capitalism also guides the realities of sexual freedom within the bounds of the same system.

The author divides this chapter into five headings, each of them dealing with different but
interconnected fragment revolving around the dynamics of sexuality in a capitalist reproduction.

The first heading, ‘Capitalism and Heteronormativity’ ventures into the relationship of
heteronormativity and capitalism, explaining how despite all the efforts of sexual revolutions,
heteronormativity has never been completely terminated.
As a result of this prevalence of heteronormativity, we as a society subconsciously frame only a specific
heterosexual orientation as what can be considered normal, making it a reference point around which
all forms of intimacy and sex are assessed.

It is pointed out how the conceptual development of heterosexuality as an acceptable orientation was
one of the key components which helped the development of heteronormativity as a mode of sexual
regulation.

The author compares the way in which sexualities are perceived in capitalist and non-capitalist societies,
which clearly showcases how capitalism has reorganized human productive activity with its connection
to the emergence of ‘’free” labor, which in return formed contradictory forms of sexual freedom.

In a non-capitalist society, various forms of sexual practices including same-sex oriented ones tend to be
perceived as the dominant form of relationships. On the other hand, under capitalism, sexual practices
that which had the ability to produce “free” labor, which only entails of heterosexuality, is seen as the
dominant form of relationship which gives rise to the formation of other sexual practices contradicting
this aspect.

The author uses Marxist-feminist social reproduction frame to provide us with a different perspective of
the rise of sexuality, which is seen as a tool of opposing the new social relations which came along with
the rise of capitalism.

She further explains this by explaining how the emergence of sexuality was both a product of strategies
of ruling from above and mobilization from below. That is, sexuality was controlled from above by
outlawing male homosexuality and prostitution, while being mobilized from below by restricting access
to abortion and contraception.

John D’Emilio explains the connection between capitalism and the rise of homosexuality as a sexual
orientation a person can identify as. He analyses how only after an individual began making their living
through wages instead of being a part of an interdependent family unit, breaking the barrier that one
can exist outside the frame of a heterosexual family and to build a personal life revolving around the
attraction to one’s own sex, paved a path for homosexuality to be identified as a sexual orientation.

The author points out Peter Drucker’s argument that the material relations of production and
reproduction constitute the fundamental environment which forms all of social reality. The author
further explains how this matrix of relations of production and reproduction influences our experiences
of sexualities, and how the social reproduction frame is helpful for locating sexuality within this given
matrix of social relations.

The second heading, ‘’ Free’’ labor and sexual freedom explores the correlation between the two and
how capitalism formed the groundwork for the rise of various forms of sexuality with a combination of
freedom and compulsion. The author explains how freedom of sexuality under capitalism revolves
around the social reproduction of ‘’free’’ labor.

The members of working class have been distinguished from their subordinated class in terms that the
workers can claim the formal ownership of their own bodies. However, the entire freedom of labor is
not entirely free from forces of compulsion.
Despite the workers owning their own bodies and their labor as a commodity, they have no means of
production to fulfill the requirements of everyday life because of which they are forced to sell their labor
and their body as a commodity in order to gain access to other necessities of life.

Marx describes this as a paradoxical double freedom, in a sense that despite the laborer having the
power of disposing their labor as a commodity, they are forced to sell it since they are stripped of all the
other objects necessary for the realization of their labor-power.

The author explains how sexuality in a capitalist society revolves around this paradoxical double
freedom, where the control over one’s own body is always combined with forms of compulsion.

That is, an individual needs to be dispossessed over the control of his/her own body in order to comply
with the requirements of exploitation by being forced to sell our work for less than the value of what we
produce.

Marx saw the key productive resources being taken away from our control as a violent process of
expropriation which led to the creation of working class. As a result of this dispossession, people starved
and died in the genocidal colonizing projects which were again associated with slavery and capitalism.

This process was dubbed to be ‘primitive accumulation’ which produced a class of ‘’free, unprotected
and rightless proletarians”. Marx saw this as a historical process of the creation of working class at
different time periods around the globe.

Marx believed that once the workers were expropriated, they were forced to sell their capacity in order
to obtain subsistence, which would in return discipline the workers. He believed that direct extra-
economic forces were used to gain control over the workers but only in exceptional cases.

However, Marx seemed to have underestimated the role of extra economic force in a capitalistic society.
Despite being stripped off control of any means of production, the workers still needed to have access
to the means of production in order to reproduce further.

This faces a threat to the control of the ruling class as workers might have access to gain counterpower.
Hence, making the process of dispossession be ongoing in order to repeatedly establish control over the
means of production and ensuring that the working class remains dispossessed of any means.

Italian Marxist-feminist Sylvia Federici developed an approach to dispossession that emphasized on the
gendered divisions as well. Since it is not enough to just take away any means of production from the
workers, it is also important to take away the control over their bodies on a regular basis. And as a part
of this process, the gendered division of labor works through processes to deprive women of control
over their own bodies and to also compel them into socially reproducing free laborers, benefitting the
capitalistic society.

Slyvia argued that this process of dispossession also brought in a new form of patriarchal order, which
revolved around the separation of women from waged work and being subordinated to men by creating
vulnerability and dependency among women through violence and silencing.

Rosemary Hennessey points out how this establishment of a patriarchal order, systematically devalues
certain group of people and work. In capitalist societies, caregiving is seen as a menial job and is
devalued rather than being highly valued as it is necessary to a human being. This in return has a huge
effect in the lives of women as they are seemed to be held responsible for caregiving in a family. It can
be observed how caregiving has a negative impact on their relationship with paid labor.

The author compares how the capitalistic societies differentiate between production and reproduction
as different moments in the cycle of life, separating work environment to household, whereas in an anti-
capitalistic society, the process of production and reproduction is blended into one process centered
around kinship.

Under capitalism, the responsibility of sustaining and taking care of their households fall on the workers
since they have the ownership of their bodies. In this way, this responsibility is separated from the
public sphere of production, privatizing this entire process. Observing, working-class women are
dispossessed both as a member of the working class and as reproductive workers, even in terms of
wages, women’s wages tend to be reduced because of the devaluing of caregiving labor.

The author brings in the argument of Angela Davis to support her stance that dispossession is
differentiated within the working class, where this differentiated dispossession is racialized, gendered
and has been produced through histories of colonization, slavery and racialization.

Angela Davis argues that looking at the history of slavery, it indicates that African American women are
more likely to be forced into paid work and heavier forms of manual labor compared to white women,
and that this is a form of dispossession which had a profound impact on the character of social
reproduction.

The author brings attention to the lack of acknowledgement of the amount of work women put in taking
care of a household in order to keep the family and the working class sustainable by Marxist feminists.

Concluding the second heading, the author specifies how social reproduction is a crucial feature of
replenishing of what is used up in the process of production. The author supports this by stating Lisa
Vogel who points out how that the reproduction of labor power is a crucial element of social
reproduction in a sense that in the process it replaces who have died or withdrawn from active work
force.

The next heading ‘’Sexuality and Alienation” revolves around alienated labor and how sexuality is
shaped by alienation in class society. The author introduces this heading by shedding light on how social
reproduction frame showcases specific ways in which life-making processes are organized under
capitalism.

The author compares the work done by humans in order to survive to that of the work done by bees,
giraffes, but with one important difference, the fact that human make deliberate choices about the way
we transform nature in order to suffice our own needs, “what distinguishes the worst architect from the
best of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his mind before he constructs it in wax.” 1

Other species interact with nature in a restricted manner where they are limited by a set of repertoires
of learned responses, whereas humans work in a much more open-ended manner depending upon the
needs we are working to fulfill.

1 Page 180, Social Reproduction Theory by Tithi Bhattacharya

The author compares how animals are restricted to engage with nature in such a manner that it is
accordance with the standard and needs of the species to which it belongs to whereas humans produce
creatively with accordance to every species. Our engagement with nature is such that it not only
quenches our needs but also produces new needs.

People make their life activity as the main object of their life whereas animals only work in order to
suffice their immediate needs. This is the reason man produces even when there is no immediate
requirement.

The author points out how human nature is dynamic and that our behavior is neither socially nor
biologically determined but rather is a product of the interaction between humans and their
environment.

The author explains how the work humans do with nature is social and is organized through society in
very specific ways. She supports this stance by quoting Marx and Engels,

The production of life, both of one’s own in labor and of fresh life in procreation appears as a twofold
relation: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relation—social in the sense that it
denotes the co-operation of several individuals.2

This co-operation between individuals is organized around social classes where the people of the ruling
classes extract labor from the working class.

The author compares how different forager societies function as compared to capitalistic societies in a
sense that there are no social classes, where everyone contributes to the basic work and receives their
fair share of the production, whereas in capitalistic societies, there is a clear distinction between those
who extract labor and those who are being controlled by the employers. Here, the society is designed in
such a manner where the work done by the society revolves primarily around meeting the needs of the
powerful.

This can be seen in the corporate world where people are hired by the employers to work for them
rather than for the sense of their own accomplishment and to meet their own needs as such. This makes
working as a means to earn a living and a wage rather than an end in itself.

The author brings in the description of alienated labor by Marx where the workers neither have control
over the process of production nor towards the product and thus does not establish bonds of mutuality
through the process of work by any means.

The main character of alienated labor that “life itself only appears as a means to life” makes the worker
feel used and dehumanized through this. This demeans the workers to the extent where they feel there
is no real difference between them and a monkey doing their job as both are capable of manual labor.

The author follows up this discussion with the introduction of human sexualities being different from
that of animals. She points out how heteronormativity diminishes the fact that humans make deliberate
choices about their sexualities that are both aesthetic and social.

2 Page 182, Social Reproduction Theory by Tithi Battacharya

Concluding the heading, the author brings in the correlation between alienated life conditions and sex
where it links sex to force and compulsion and making it a means to an end rather than the end in itself.

The next heading “The social reproduction of consent and coercion” revolves around how the contract
between employer and the employee is a good example of consent grounded in inequality.

The author introduces the heading by explaining how heteronormativity was developed as a form of
sexual regulation which reinforced specific organization of social reproduction in the rise of capitalism.

Heterosexuality is normalized and is established as acceptable in the form of monogamous couples who
cohabitate and raise their children in a household. Sexual revolutions widened the scope of this
normative realm by making cohabitation of unmarried couples, single parents and mothers being
involved with paid work to be considered acceptable and normal and also led to the expansion of the
parameters of sexual normativity to include homonormativity where a same-sex couple live their life
similar to that of a heterosexual couple.

The author explains how the lens of heteronormativity grounded in social reproduction provides us with
tools to understand sexual assault with respect to coercion and consent. Mobilization around the issues
of sexual assault have been the prominent theme of the second wave of feminism since the 1970s, and
increase in the activism around sexual assaults have revealed that the system is not working in favor of
the victims and the situation being so bad that one could believe the system is working against women
by trying to normalize sexual assaults and trivialize the experiences of women.

The author points out how sexual assaults are not the mere product of a few men gone rogue but it is
been embedded into the system has been normalized. She brings in Nicola Gavey’s argument that the
everyday norms we follow as a result of heterosexual normativity works as a cultural scaffolding for rape
to support her previous stance.

Nicola Gaves further explains her argument that the entirety of heterosex in based on gendered norms
which implies that it is the nature of women to be passive and acquiescing while men are urgent and
aggressive with their sexual release. This gender norm itself insists that women are wrapped around
their obligation to fulfill the sexual desires of men while not having any of their own.

This supports the fact that heteronormativity is grounded in practices of life-making within a matrix of
power relations. The author goes in detail about how gendered norms are nothing but a set of daily
practices which are framed by a matrix of power relations which structure production and reproduction
in capitalistic societies.

The author compares the differences between embodied agencies that women developed compared to
men. Men develop their sense of embodiment through engagement in particular forms of work which is
often grounded in pride that of providing for the dependent family members and their ability to endure
tedious and painful work. This is very different compared to the embodied agency that women develop
which develops through unpaid labor in the household, creating an economic dependence.

The author explains how because of this, women are more likely to engage in practices such as
caregiving labor compared to working in a heavy machinery industry. She brings in the argument of
Dorothy Smith that women and men tend to perceive the world in a different manner since they are
engaged in different practices of work.
Dorothy further explains how men are able to sustain in their abstract work environment because of
women who take care of their household, bears children and provides for the logistics of his bodily
existence.

The author focuses on how the whole human embodied interactions are forged around the concept of
mutuality. She brings in Garvey’s argument that right from the definition of what entails to be sex in
terms of a coital imperative in heteronormativity has an underlying of the cultural scaffolding of rape
supporting her previous stance.

It is further explained how this narrow definition of sex takes one moment of the complex relations
between bodies has been made to be the pinnacle of heterosex. Coital imperative that is seen as the
pinnacle of heterosex in itself subconsciously associates masculinity as the dominant division of labor.

The author brings in the role of social reproduction with respect to consent and coercion where it
revolves around divisions of labor and power relations that frame questions on consent and coercion.
However, Gavey points out how the simple concept of consent and coercion alone does not do justice in
reality.

Women are subconsciously made to believe that they are obligated to fulfill the sexual desires of men
and that they have no right to necessarily have a choice when it comes to sex. Women have reported
that they go along with sex even when they necessarily are not comfortable with it since they felt a
sense of obligation or when the man applies enough pressure that the women had no choice but to go
along with it, fearing violence.

The social reproduction frame helps us understanding men’s entitlement and women’s lack of
ownership towards themselves which arises beyond the culture of heteronormativity. Unequal power
relations create a sense of vulnerability while division of labor creates specific expectations of
embodiment.

The author focuses the discussion on to rape with relation to violence against women. She explains how
the cultural scaffolding of rape is nested in broader relations which naturalize and normalize sexual
coercion. She brings in the argument of Angela Davis that this sexual coercion was so prominent that it
was an important dimension of the social relations between master and slave.

The idea that sex is a pursuit or a conquest, associated with heteronormative masculinity is again
connected with the sexualization of domination in a sexual relation. Military conquest being closely
associated with sexual coercion can be taken as an example for this.

The author brings in Angela’s points supporting this statement that it was an unwritten policy of the US
military to systematically encourage rape as it was an extremely effective weapon of mass terrorism.
Even today, Israeli prisoners use sexual assault as a tool for humiliation against Palestinian political
prisoners.

Sexual assault reinforces the power dynamic that the dominant seeks the subordinate as a conquest
rather than equals. Thus, this rules of domination and subordination frame sexual consent and coercion.

Concluding the topic, the author compares the basic labor contract between an employer and an
employee to consent grounded in inequality. The worker and the employee meet being formal equals,
but then theworker is still forced to sell his labor as a commodity in order to gain access to the
necessities of life.

The final heading of the chapter “Social movements and Embodied Agencies” ventures into the
prevalence of male aggression in activist spaces forming obstacles to completely demolish rape culture
and the challenges women go through when they try to perpetuate antirape activism.

The author introduces the chapter through establishing how anticapitalistic activism meets some of the
criteria put out by Gavey for impairing heteronormativity and to develop the embodied agency of
women.

Women who participate in activism often find comfort within the bonds that were formed during the
protests and strikes to the extent where women relied on each other for emotional support. But still,
they had to face tension and the sense of being excluded within their own unions as a result of
masculine culture existing within the trade unions during the strike.

The author points out how “masculine culture” and the threat of sexual assault impact activist spaces.
Because of this, mobilization has a contradictory response to what is expected as it reinforces
heteronormativity through sexual assaults.

The struggle against fighting sexual assault includes finding new means for militancy whilst challenging
toxic heteronormativity that often exists in activist spaces since masculine aggression is useful in
militancy.

The author suggests other ways of being militant that does not include toxic masculinity, hence not
posing a threat of sexual assaults or reinforcing heteronormativity including organizing unions and
student unions which are tremendously important to women.

The author concludes the heading by explaining the need for an activist space to be structured around
antirape culture and how if not, it is more likely to include aggressive masculinity tied with
heteronormative practices associated with sexual assault.

Concluding the chapter, the author presses the need for sexual liberation and how it is not an automatic
outcome of other changes in our social life but something we need to deliberately fight for apart from
our struggles fighting capitalism, racism and gender inequality. She concludes by stating that the only
way we can achieve sexual liberation is by democratizing our everyday lives in such a way that we build
power from below.