Remarks on Gender | Cinzia Arruzza

We often use the term patri­archy to under­score that gen­der oppres­sion is a phenom­e­non not reducible to inter­per­sonal rela­tions, but rather has a more societal char­ac­ter and con­sis­tency. How­ever, things become a bit more com­pli­cated if we want to be more pre­cise about what exactly is meant by “patri­archy” and “patri­ar­chal sys­tem.” And this move becomes even more com­plex when we begin to ask about the pre­cise rela­tion­ship between patri­archy and capitalism.

It may not be enough to find new answers to the old question of what is the “organizing principle” connecting patriarchy and capitalism. We may have to pose completely new questions.

The Intersectional Conundrum and the Nation-State | Sara R. Farris

The nation-state could be the lens through which we can try to see the necessity of gendered and racial oppression, alongside class exploitation, as preconditions and not only consequences of capital accumulation.

If we are truly committed to a rigorous and unifying theory of capital, we must consider the possibility that race and gender are as logically necessary as class is to the capitalist mode of production.

Specifying the relationship between the logical and historical dimensions of capitalism is one of the most controversial problems in Marxist theory, and one about which I am very uncertain. But, as this is the point of contention between Oksala, Farris, Manning and myself, I will address a set of concerns pertaining to this problem which is relevant to the central issues at stake: whether or not we can claim that gender oppression is a necessary feature of capitalism and, if so, at what level of abstraction can we make that claim.