Re: Capitalism and Heterosexism: Judith Butler & Nancy Fraser (To Katha)

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Katha:

Starting from your last sentences:
>But I would just say
>to them, well, capital punishment isn't essential to capitalism -- as is
>proved by the fact that the US is the only major capitalist country that
>still has it-- but the lbo-talk men would never dismiss the importance
>of fighting capital punishment.
> Or would they?

Well, they might, if Eric Alterman is any indication.... In certain
respects, some self-identified 'leftist' guys are even worse than
non-leftists, because they have a 'theory' with which they can rationalize
their own sense of 'priorities,' what must be principles and what can be
compromised, and so on.

>  I actually thought malgosia made a good point: if the question is, is
>homophobia integral to capitalism, we just don't know. You can see it
>either way:
>1. homophobia is an essential part of capitalism because it reinforces
>gender roles, thus helping to segment the working class; it gives those
>without much power a class of people to feel superior to; it is part of
>the whole military-Christian-right-America-first mindset; it is a way
>for people being swept aside by the shifting economy to feel that they
>still represent the good, the moral, the decent; it plays a role in
>keeping people distracted and stupid  ETc.
>
>2.  Homophobia is not essential to capitalism, although in some ways
>useful to particular political and economic forces. That it is not
>essential is proved by the fact that it is on the decline. Legally, Gays
>are acquiring more rights (domestic partnership, adoption rights); many
>corporations are quite gay friendly; there been a big rise in percent of
>people who favor gay marriage and profess themselves unprejudiced; it is
>less and less acceptable to say homophobic things, more and more famous
>and powerful people are out of the closet. with no ill effects to their
>lives or careers, large swathes of American pop culture are heavily gay
>or gay-influenced (South Park, Village People, Indigo girls, all ads for
>men's underwear ) etc.
>
>I'm more inclined to the second position.It seems to me that mostly it's
>reactionary southern politicians, fundamentalist churches, and assorted
>macho nationalists  (Farrakhan) who play the gay card, not corporate
>leaders, banks, or politicians with more than a regional base. That AIDS
>has not been the catalyst for suppression of gays--much as some
>Christian Coaltion types would like -- is I think very telling. And if
>you look cross culturally, the countries that are most homophobic are
>hardly the most capitalist!
>  But I agree with Carroll Cox: the need to see every bad thing as an
>essential feature of capitalism leads to an overly determinist,
>monocausal view of society. I think you, Yoshi, may feel that those who
>say homophobia isn't essential to capitalism are dismissing its
>importance, and often (as on lbo-talk) they are.

(1) 'historical relations, not essential relations':
I don't see the questions as a matter of asking whether heterosexism is or
is not 'integral' or 'essential' to capitalism. As a thought experiment,
one can imagine capitalism without heterosexism, sexism, racism, etc.
However, actually existing and historically constituted capitalism has
developed and massively benefitted from racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.
So what I am interested in is a theory that explains the historically
constituted linkages among them, which I think is different from asking if
heterosexism is 'essential' to capitalism (and if the latter were the
question, I'd say no).

(2) 'what we do know about heterosexism':
The ideology of heterosexism and the institution of heterosexuality are
modern, and neither existed in pre-capitalist society. Heterosexism and
heterosexuality were forged in the ways capitalism made the 'family' emerge
(while transformed) from the 'household'; and heterosexism and
heterosexuality have been resources for naturalizing genders + for
privatizing care-giving and other kinds of labor that go into social
reproduction (creation, socialization, & maintenance of workers and their
labor power). There is, however, a paradox: it is the very same capitalism
that created homosexual identities, if only as 'perversions' (no
capitalism, no homosexuals, and no 'perversions,' no heterosexual
'norms.'). And in many ways, the development of capitalism has destabilized
the 'family' as well as sexual identities to go with it. Further, we also
see conservative fears of and backlashes against such destabilization. To
sum up, within capitalism, there exist both tendencies to stabilize &
destabilize heterosexism + heterosexuality.

(3) 'queer individuals, genders, and heterosexism'"

I agree with Katha that there has been a good deal of progress on the gay &
lesbian rights front and that many corporations have become gay-friendly
(and much more so than, alas, some workers + 'leftists'). However, I think
that critique of heterosexism is about more than the treatment of queer
individuals, an urgent issue as it in itself is. In my view, it involves at
least what I wrote above in (2) and in fact much more, and hence
anti-heterosexism is essential to feminism.

Also, it is very possible that while a good number of individual gay men &
lesbians become 'accepted' through the aquisition of legal rights and
privileges as a distinctive 'minority,' heterosexism will continue to
operate and structure the production of sex/gender/sexuality, albeit
differently than now. And even in terms of improving the lives of
individual gay men & lesbians, the winning of legal rights (though an
important step forward) is likely to help mainly the middle strata of gay
men & lesbians assimilate into heterosexual social norms while poorer gay
men & lesbians will continue to suffer from what laws cannot remedy under
capitalism, both in the spheres of production and social reproduction. (To
begin with, if women are economically dependent upon individual men, we can
hardly become and live as lesbians.) Such an eventuality will leave
heterosexual norms untouched and even re-naturalized (through the discourse
of 'sexual orientations': e.g. 'we're born that way'). However, for women
(and men) to obtain sexual & reproductive freedoms + autonomy, we can't
leave heterosexual norms (and ultimately heterosexuals) untouched.

Yoshie