Preface
Reproductive rights have been a central point of conversation regarding feminism, politics, and society. The reproductive rights of women and individuals with uteruses include rights to control and make decisions relating to reproduction and childbearing, especially with regard to contraception and abortion. But how do we truly fight for reproductive rights? Especially in a capitalist society, reproductive rights have been atrociously suppressed. This paper reflects upon how the naturalization of care roles for women in the capitalist economy relates to reproductive rights; examines how capitalism has impeded reproductive freedom throughout history, and analyzes how the fight for reproductive rights is an anti-capitalist fight.
Capitalism and The Patriarchy
In her text “Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism”, Zillah R. Eisenstein reflects upon the patriarchal elements of capitalism, and the importance of a class-oriented, socialist approach to feminism. Eisenstein marks the importance of a Marxist analysis to the study of women's oppression. She states it “provides a class analysis necessary for the study of power” (Eisenstein, pg. 7). For Eisenstein, the dialectical and historical methods of Marxist analysis are useful to understanding the patriarchal relations governing women’s existence. The woman can be considered a class in herself, and what proletariats are to the class struggle, women are to the gender struggle. Marx emphasizes his position on the bourgeois family in the Communist Manifesto, where he sees the family relation as having been reduced to a mere money relation: “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain…” (Eisenstein, pg. 14). Furthermore, In The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx writes, “Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the annual form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property”. The notion of the woman as communal property is central to patriarchal rhetoric and the imprisonment of women in communal care and reproductive roles. One example of this is of course abortion laws, wherein the state controls the bodily autonomy of women for purposes of reproduction, reinforcing the idea that women’s bodies are communal property that fall under the jurisdiction of state law. Marx saw women's problems as related to their status as mere instruments of reproduction. The bourgeois family is seen in Marx's writings as an instrument of capitalist society. As Eisenstein writes, “Woman's oppression is her exploitation in the class society through bourgeois marriage and the family. Woman is perceived as just another victim undistinguished from the proletariat in general of the pernicious class division of labor.” Women are exploited by class and gender hierarchies, and their reproductive rights are infringed upon in capitalist societies.
For women, there is a sexual division of labor as well, an idea scholars like Sylvia Federici have written extensively about. In the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels repeated the theme developed in the German Ideology: “the first division of labor is that between man and woman for child breeding”. That is a central focus of this paper today. Patriarchal capitalism forces women into roles of child breeding and care. To combat this, radical feminism today produces a deeper understanding of sexual power and emphasizes the revolutionary demand for the destruction of patriarchy. It is important to be critical of the biological family, the hierarchical sexual division of society, and sex roles themselves. All of these must be fundamentally reorganized to dismantle the patriarchy and fight for reproductive rights.
Social Reproduction Theory and Reproductive Rights
Social reproduction- especially within feminist theory- is defined as the combination of the organization of production, social reproduction, the perpetuation of gender roles, and the continuation of class relations (NIH). Social reproduction primarily involves market-level relationships among various institutions (e.g. the family, the state, educational institutions, healthcare systems, elder care, and childcare). These relationships and organizations, along with the input of domestic and reproductive labor, facilitate the processes of maintaining and reproducing labor power relations and the laboring population (Gimenez). Essentially, social reproduction is a functional requirement in all societies; it is about the social relations and institutions surrounding the reproduction of the population and the social groups, classes, strata within classes and other divisions, such as gender. Social reproduction is the maintenance of the social structures and relations that feed into capitalism. In capitalist societies, reproduction takes place under specific conditions in which production determines reproduction (Gimenez, pg. 3). As such, the modes of production and the hierarchies of labor impact how social reproduction occurs in order to maintain these forms of production and labor relations. Furthermore, the biology of sexuality, human procreation, and physical reproduction is a historically material condition across every mode of production. These biological and sexual practices of reproduction propel the labor force and other capitalist forces of production. As such, reproductive labor and social reproduction are both integral to the capitalist system.
History of Capitalism’s Attacks on Reproductive Justice: From Witch Hunts to Abortion Bans
When tracing capitalism’s attacks on women and their reproductive rights within the context of the class struggle, one can start with chattel slavery (American Civil Liberties Union). Enslaved women were used by their owners to “breed” new generations of laborers to be funneled into the slave system. All attempts by enslaved women to fight for their reproductive rights were met with total resistance. The ownership and control of enslaved people’s reproductive rights were essential for the continuation of the slave economy and its larger role in capitalism. Even after the abolition of slavery, the control of the reproductive rights of Black women has persisted, its remnants apparent in today's anti-abortion and reproductive rights politics.
Another historical example of patriarchal capitalism that sought to erase reproductive rights is that of the witch hunts. Sylvia Federici cites this example as central to the construction of patriarchal capitalism (OpenDemocracy). Women were hunted for honing their agency and fighting for rights. Moreover, the women hunted were usually poor and were frequently accused either of crimes against property or of reproductive crimes. They were tried for procuring abortions and challenging the reproductive roles a woman was supposed to adopt (OpenDemocracy). As we have seen, the economic model that was being built during the witch-hunting era (circa 1561-1670) relied on the unpaid reproductive labor of women – including gestation, care, and housework. As such, chattel slavery and witch hunts were both points in history that reinforced patriarchal capitalism and the suppression of reproductive rights. Throughout history, patriarchy has been central to capitalism and the exploitation of women’s bodies and reproductive labor has been legitimized under the capitalist system. Therefore, fighting for reproductive rights must be an anti-capitalist fight as well, since these structures of reproductive and patriarchal oppression are rooted in capitalism.
To be a Woman is to Breed
As mentioned by Marx, Engels, and Federici, a woman’s main role in society has always been to breed. In her 1975 text “Wages Against Housework”, Federici reflects upon the naturalization and sexualization of reproductive and care-based labor for women. Reproductive labor became something that was inherent to being a woman and constituted the feminine characteristic. Federici highlights how the naturalization of reproductive labor has been one of the main barriers to the achievement of reproductive rights. The idea is that women are supposed to breed for the benefit of the entire capitalist society, and thus the larger capitalist system controls their reproductive rights. In her text “Racism, Birth Control, and Reproductive Rights”, Angela Davis further reflects upon the idea of women as breeders for the capitalist society, specifically in the aforementioned context of slavery. In Caliban and the Witch, Federici further demonstrates how the “demonization of women's control over their reproductive capacity, and the subsequent violence unleashed against them, was absolutely necessary for global capitalism to emerge” (Carlin and Federici). It wasn’t by chance that Federici chose to write her history of capitalism during the 1990s and early 2000s. She was witnessing a new phase of capitalism, a new class war, and a new war on women. This rhetoric of the autonomous woman as a demon that Federici alludes to is central to present-day attacks on reproductive and abortion rights. It is critical to understand Marxist ideas about the naturalization of reproductive labor for women to truly understand the opposition to reproductive rights, and recognize how the fight for reproductive rights is an anti-capitalist fight.
In her essay “Women: Caste, Class or Oppressed Sex,” written prior to the Roe decision, Evelyn Reed argues that capitalism has pushed women to their lowest status ever in society by confining them only to the family unit, and excluding them from the public sphere. “Despite the hypocritical homage paid to womankind as the ‘sacred mother’ and devoted homemaker, the worth of women sank to its lowest point under capitalism. Since housewives do not produce commodities for the market nor create any surplus value for the profiteers, they are not central to the operations of capitalism. Only three justifications for their existence remain under this system: as breeders, as household janitors, and as buyers of consumer goods for the family,” she writes (Shah, Molly). Reed echoes the claim made by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State that “to emancipate woman and make her the equal of the man is and remains an impossibility so long as the woman is shut out from social productive labor and restricted to private domestic labor.” There is a general consensus amongst Marxist thinkers like Reed and Federici that a negative of patriarchal capitalism is the imprisonment of women in reproductive care roles, and the state control over their reproductive autonomy. This reinforces the idea of how capitalism continually impedes reproductive rights, and raises the question of whether reproductive rights can ever be attained in a capitalist society that functions off of the reproductive labor of women. Reed emphasizes that the fight for abortion rights would allow women to escape from the domestic realm, which is central to their emancipation from patriarchy and the freedom of all people from the manipulation of capitalism. Bodily autonomy and reproductive justice for women are aligned with their economic empowerment and liberation. True feminist liberation can only occur with a class struggle and liberation from capitalism.
So, what makes reproductive labor and the consequent suppression of reproductive autonomy so essential to the capitalist mode of production today? Of course, with patriarchy embedded in the structure of capitalism, these gendered ideas of labor and power are essential to the capitalist hierarchy. In his work, especially the Grundrisse (1857–1858) and the first volume of Capital (1867), Marx defined capitalism as a mode of production characterized by the separation of the producers or the working class from the means of production. In the case of reproductive labor and reproduction, women don’t have autonomy over their own reproductive rights in the capitalist system (Left Voice). In 1972, the feminist Marxist autonomist Mariarosa Dalla Costa and Selma James published The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community. They claimed that reproductive labor is essential to capitalism and that because it is unpaid, its crucial role is made invisible (Left Voice). This invisibility of reproductive labor enables the further suppression of reproductive autonomy and agency. Since the capitalist structure feeds off of invisible, reproductive labor, the reproductive liberation of women is counter to the capitalist agenda.
The Heterosexual, Patriarchal Family, and Reproductive Labor
The assault on women’s bodies under capitalism has persisted throughout history and to this day. Alongside this attack on reproductive rights, there has been a devaluation of women’s work, and a redefinition of womanhood itself. As stated by Fedrici and Nancy Fraser, the heterosexual, patriarchal family became the engine of the new economy (The Review of Radical Political Economics). Capitalism has always functioned in alignment with strict gender roles. The woman’s place has always been in the home, in the kitchen, all the reproductive and care work they did being considered ‘non-work’. Non-work included all reproductive labor: firstly having babies, and then the care and domestic work needed for humans to sustain and reproduce themselves (Open Democracy). Due to the social and family organization in capitalism, women have been held in a subordinate position and male supremacy has been the law of the land. Childbearing and child rearing, alongside housework, has been delegated as “women’s work.” In her text, “Woman as Caretaker: An Archetype That Supports Patriarchal Militarism”, Laura Duhan Kaplan further outlines how the naturalization of care and reproductive roles for women has become integral to the capitalist structure and organization of labor. Women’s invisible reproductive labor has been a central element of modes of production under capitalism. Women have largely been breeders and caretakers, and their reproductive rights have been non-existent under capitalist regimes.
Can Reproductive Rights Ever Function in A Capitalist Society?
To understand how deeply intertwined capitalism and the patriarchy are, we can look to a Marxist superstructure analysis. The Marxist approach analyzes how a society produces and reproduces itself and the norms, laws, and relationships under which production and reproduction take place. The ideas, laws, formal institutions, and religions that legitimize, strengthen, and stabilize these processes and relations at the base of production and reproduction are what comprise the superstructure (New Left Review). Patriarchy operates powerfully within capitalism, and is central to how the system produces and reproduces itself. It is hard to distinguish if patriarchy primarily operates in the superstructure of capitalism as an ideology, or in the base as a relation to or force of production. Some would argue it functions as both, and engaging in this debate helps us unravel the thread of patriarchal capitalism (Farelly).
Alongside the patriarchal influence, the historical and current attack on abortion and reproductive rights is related to capitalism, the modes of production, and the need for labor power through reproduction. The control of reproductive health has always been central to capitalist society. The rise of capitalism has always demanded a continual supply of workers to increase production and profit, a demand that propels the state’s interest in controlling reproductive rights (Davis, ‘Racism, Birth Control, and Reproductive Rights’). Capitalism’s need for workers is not the only reason for the persistent attack on bodily autonomy; capitalism also has a compulsion to control pregnant people in order to ensure that domestic and reproductive labor are done efficiently and pose no threat to the overarching system.
Another reason that reproductive rights are unable to function within the capitalist system is because the traditional family unit is highly valuable to capitalist functioning, especially as it relates to the biological and social reproduction of the next generation of workers. The traditional family unit needs the suppression of reproductive rights and the submission of women to function in the capitalist structure. Lisa Vogel highlights this in her social reproduction theory. At the core of Vogel’s ideas is the argument that women’s social position can only be made sense through analyzing the social relations of exploitation and, specifically, the unique role of women and childbirth in reproducing the conditions that enable exploitation (Marxists). The exploitation of women’s bodies and labor is central to capitalism, and thus equitable and inclusive reproductive rights are antithetical to capitalism’s agenda. Even if reproductive rights could be attained in a capitalist society, it would only be to the extent that serves capitalism, not to the extent wherein reproductive rights and healthcare are equitably accessible to all people, regardless of their class status.
What has Changed + What has Not
It is important of course to recognize that there have been many changes in the realm of reproductive rights. Firstly, there are the changes in labor force participation of women, and fertility and birth rates. In the United States, the labor force participation rate for women was 56.8 percent in 2022 (Bureau of Labor Statistics). As of 2020, the total fertility rate for the world is 2.3, and 1.6 for the U.S. (World Bank). In a study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research, results imply that the effect of fertility on female labor supply is strongest during the fertile years (20–39 years of age). A high degree of persistence in labor market participation was found, such that higher total fertility is associated with lower female labor force participation even at older ages. On average, results indicate that with each additional child, female labor force participation decreases by about 10–15 percentage points in the age group 25–39, and about 5–10 percentage points in the age group 40–49 (NBER). As such, we see that when a woman is engaged in reproductive labor, the chances of her being engaged in the public sphere or labor market are lesser. Thus one can assume that compulsory reproduction for women - something that is reinforced by the social reproduction of patriarchy and gender roles in our society- is detrimental to their participation and agency in the public sphere. As such, since patriarchy is embedded in capitalism and the class hierarchy feeds off of the gender hierarchy, it is in capitalism’s interest to keep women in the private sphere by suppressing their reproductive rights and naturalizing their invisible reproductive labor. This affirms the idea that reproductive rights and capitalism are antithetical to each other.
Of course, it is important to recognize that the suppression of women and their reproductive rights is decidedly not the same as during slavery or witch hunts. While the state’s rhetoric- and the mainstream global rhetoric- surrounding reproductive liberation and women’s reproductive agency is fairly negative, there have been changes for the better. Abortion is legal in many U.S. states and many countries across the globe. Birth control is now offered over the counter in many countries, and in the U.S., many higher-education institutions have been implementing emergency contraception vending machines. Nevertheless, these advancements exist in contradictions. Take the Post-Roe U.S. for example; abortion is legal in New York, but it is currently illegal for someone in Idaho to travel to receive their reproductive health care (NBC News). As such, reproductive rights have been advanced, but not wholly, and only for some demographics. The equitability and accessibility of reproductive rights in our global society is debatable. People of higher incomes, living in metropolitan hotspots like New York have the privilege of reproductive healthcare; but reproductive healthcare should not be a privilege, but rather an accessible right for all. What has changed in the realm of reproductive rights has primarily changed for folks higher up in the capitalist hierarchy. For example, low-income and BIPOC populations experience disproportionate barriers to accessing reproductive healthcare and taking charge of their rights, and these demographics are in need of increased abortion and reproductive healthcare funding (Guttmacher). In the context of the global hegemony, Global South countries continue to struggle with population control and reproductive oppressions such as forced sterilization and female genital mutilation (UNFPA). As such, there is to this day an international need for the true and equitable advancement of reproductive rights. This begs the question of whether such complete, equitable reproductive rights can be attained in a capitalist society.
The Fight for Reproductive Rights is an Anti-Capitalist Fight
It is possible, in a theoretical sense, that reproductive rights could be attained in a capitalist society. After all, our societies and economies are changing every day, and with that our global sociopolitical state. However, whether true, equitable, and accessible reproductive rights can be attained in practice in a capitalist society such as the ones that exist today is a different question. When healthcare is often connected to one’s income or work, how can access to reproductive healthcare in a capitalist, classist society truly be equitable?
Many radical feminists and Marxist thinkers- such as the ones quoted in this paper- believe that reproductive rights are truly attainable only with a new mode of production. The fight for reproductive rights needs to be class-oriented and anti-capitalist. Capitalist modes of production based on extreme inequality and exploitation persist because of ruling institutions, political systems, ideas, and traditions that protect and rationalize these economic processes (Liberation School). With this rationalization of capitalism comes a rationalizing of patriarchy, and the legitimation of the reproductive suppression of women and individuals with uteruses. So how do we end patriarchy under capitalism if it is so embedded at every level of the capitalist system? This larger question applies to reproductive rights as well, and begs the question if we can ever fight for reproductive rights under a patriarchal, capitalist system. True reproductive liberation also involves freedom from racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and anti-worker and anti-immigrant ideas and policies. Unfortunately, these discriminatory ideologies are embedded within the capitalist system and promoted by the capitalist class to divide society. It is crucial that the struggle for reproductive justice be aimed at the capitalist system: a primary cause of all oppression, exploitation, and inequality.
Conclusion
Capitalism and patriarchy have been intertwined throughout history. Capitalism functions on the reproductive exploitation of women and their bodies. So, it is near impossible to achieve reproductive rights in a capitalist system such as in the U.S. While capitalism manifests in different ways, patriarchal and reproductive oppression have been part of the capitalist superstructure since the dawn of class society. As such, the fight for reproductive rights is a fight against capitalism. Recognizing this relation between capitalism and conducting this discourse is the first step to strategizing how we can combat capitalist influence to achieve true reproductive rights.
コメント