MONEY, SEX AND POWER

Citizenship and its exclusions: the sexual contractWeek 82013 - 2014

IntroductionTheme 2: sexual politics When we talk about the politics of sex or

sexual politics what do we mean?   We mean: power relationships between

men and women in both formal groups or institutions in the public sphere as well as in the family which is consigned to the private sphere but which feminists have fought hard to show is not a private matter.

Sexual politics includes

Sexual politics refers to: politics of motherhood (including

contraception and abortion) politics of child care.Politics impinges also upon marriage divorce women’s right to work outside the

home their participation in the armed forces Pornography advertising

Citizenship – formal and real In liberal democracies, suffrage is the hallmark of

citizenship. But, the right to vote is only one part of citizenship and other basic political and legal rights also have to be part of the equation.

If citizenship is to be meaningful in everyday life and of equal worth to all citizens, then each individual must be accepted as an equal participant in all areas of social and political life.

Citizenship is not just problematic for women; not all men are full and equal members of their polities. Poor men; men from a variety of racial and ethnic groups are politically marginalised or discriminated the world over. But women face certain problems which don‘t affect men.

Lecture outline

1. The social contract2. Pateman and the sexual

contract3. How can women/feminists

challenge these exclusions?

The social contract

Pateman – feminist critique of social contract theory

She argues that the social contract incorporates a sexual contract which excludes women from the political arena

Idea of social contract is metaphor for understanding government

Hobbes (1651), Locke (1690), Rousseau(1762): government should be for and by the people

Hobbes

To avoid the brutishness of nature, people must agree contractually to set up society and to collectively and reciprocally give up all the rights they have against one another in the State of Nature.

People must invest authority and power in one person or group of persons to enforce the initial contract. To escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it.

Since the sovereign (one person or group of people) is given the authority and power to punish citizens for any breaches of contract, then citizens will have reason to comply with society’s moral codes and justice in particular.

Hobbes …

Living under the authority of the sovereign can be difficult but in order for the social contract to be successful, the sovereign must have absolute authority because that’s better than living in a chaotic and nasty state of nature.

No matter how much we object to how badly a Sovereign manages the affairs of state and regulates our own lives, we are never justified in resisting the Sovereign’s power because it is the only thing which stands between us and what we most want to avoid, the State of Nature.

Locke and Rousseau

John Locke’s writings followed those of Hobbes 37 years later; he argued that if the government fails to keep its side of the contract, then the people have the right to resist.

And Rousseau, writing 50 years after Locke argued that the free exchange of natural autonomy for protection and participation in socially regulated government could only be achieved through direct participatory democracy, thus introducing the idea of directly electing our representatives.

Social Contract

Different theories reflect desire to base legitimacy of government on choice of people governed

Emerged from increasing importance in 17th and 18th centuries of contracts in commercial transactions

Social environment of increasing individualism, secularisation, legalism

Critics of social contract theory Governments based on coercion not

consent (Hume, Bentham, Paine) Run for the benefit of those governing

rather than those governed Most governments established by force Claims of women to be recognised as

citizens date back to the 18th century – they were not included in the social contract nor were they regarded as citizens

Pateman: the sexual contractThe social contract and liberal political

theory generates Liberal politics and the political freedom

of (male) individuals The sexual subordination of women to

men in marriageSocial contract creates division between

state and civil societyRequires sexual contract to maintain

patriarchalism

Separation of state and civil society Separation of political power from

paternal power ‘masculine right over women is

declared non-political’ (Pateman, 1988:90)

Original contract wasn’t only a social contract establishing freedom, was also a sexual contract perpetuating domination

Established men’s political right over women through conjugal right

Public vs private

Contract theorists created division between public sphere of civil freedom and private sphere of family

Pateman argues that women not party to the original contract, they’re the subject of the contract

Civil society referred to as the ‘private’ sphere in opposition to ‘public’ sphere of state

Family, where women are subordinated, is forgotten

Pateman

Exclusion of family and domestic arena not accidental – structural and systematic

Denial of political significance of sexual and marital dominance suggests patriarchy of no relevance to public domain

What social and political forces confined women to family and allowed men freedom of movement between private and public?

Important concepts

1. Possessive individualism2. Contract, equality and subordination

1. Free ‘men’ are individuals who own property rights in their own persons and can enter into contracts.Only men have rationality, independence and ownership of property in their own persons.Women naturally inferior to men and lack ability to engage in rational, independent thought.They’re not born free (as men are). Do not have ownership of property in their own person. Cannot be possessive individuals.

Marriage contract

If women lack capacities to make contracts how can they enter the marriage contract?

Male sex right based on coercion Women do not have same civil status

as men In 19th century married women were the

property of their husbands Husband and wife one person and that

person was the husband Today rape in marriage outlawed in UK

but not in some states in US

Sexual difference

‘the construction of sexual difference as political difference is central to civil society’ (Pateman, 1998:16).

Contract, equality and subordination Contract can’t be understood as

voluntary agreement between free and equal individuals

E.g. employers and employees unequal in terms of economic constraints, women and men unequal in terms of family constraints

Social contract creates political right in form of domination and subordination

Political fiction

Contracts claim to regulate voluntary and free exchange of services between individuals who own property in their own persons and capabilities

Exchangers are free individuals ‘We cannot contract out our services

and capacities, while leaving ourselves free’ (Diana Coole, 1990)

Challenging exclusions

The personal is political - sloganSexual contract not confined to private

sphereIt is about: Institutionalising heterosexuality Defining women as embodied sexual

beings How men claim rights of access and

control over women’s bodies

Judith Squires

Integrationist approach Transformational approach Displacement or politicisation

approach

Integrationist approach

Aims to include women in current political forms

Women recognised as independent, autonomous, rational, possessive individuals

Gender neutral politics Women and femininity identified as

problem

Transformationist approach Change politics so it’s more woman

friendly Reconfigure political arena Emphasises gender difference,

recognises it, takes account of difference

Men and masculinity are the problem Pateman adopts this approach – also

Nancy Fraser

Displacement/ politicisation Attempts to deconstruct gender Way gender is constructed is the

problem Reorganise public/ private division in

less patriarchal ways

Conclusions

Political theory is highly gendered, political practice resistant to women’s inclusion

Women’s exclusion from politics and political theory is both gendered and political – requires explanation

Sexual contract provides basis for the social contract, excludes women from full political and sexual citizenship

www.femcit.org