A Brief on Sexual Contract PDF

Preview

Summary

References to the sexual contract conjure up the famous idea of a social or original contract, which originated in the work of political theorists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase is often used in popular political discourse to refer to an explicit or implicit agreement betwee...

Description

Sexual Contract

INTRODUCTION References to the sexual contract conjure up the famous idea of a social or original contract, which originated in the work of political theorists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase is often used in popular political discourse to refer to an explicit or implicit agreement between a democratic state and its citizens. “The sexual contract” came into currency in political theory in the early 1990s, after the publication of The Sexual Contract in 1988 (Pateman 1988), and has come to be used in two senses. The specific sense refers to the arguments of the book and to AngloAmerican societies; the more general sense refers to forms of domination of women by men in any society or culture. The Sexual Contract provides a reinterpretation from a feminist perspective of classic theories of an (hypothetical) original contract, together with an analysis of actual contracts, such as the marriage contract and employment contract, showing that these familiar contracts have been shaped in part by the ideas in the classic texts. The idea of an original agreement or contract was necessary for the classic theorists because of their premise of natural individual freedom and equality.The premise opened up the question of why self-governing individuals should submit to be governed in “civil society,” that is, the modern state. The justification provided was that individuals freely gave their agreement by entering into an original contract. Feminist reinterpretation shows that, rather, the original contract is two-dimensional. One dimension is the social contract that justified government of citizens by the state. The second dimension is the sexual contract that justified the government of women by men and thus the patriarchal structure of the modern state. Three factors helped ensure that the sexual contract was ignored. First, political theorists failed to see that modern patriarchal government is not paternal, the traditional

rule of fathers over sons (e.g., Filmer 1991); instead it is fraternal, the rule of (a fraternity of men over women, maintained and reproduced through the mechanism of contract. Second, they did not pursue the political implications of the classic theorists’ claim that women, by nature, lacked the characteristics and capacities of free and equal individuals and, therefore, cannot be self-governing. Mary Astell’s question, posed in 1700 – why, if all men were born free, all women were born slaves? – was never mentioned (Astell 1996 [1700]). Third, political theorists accepted that the traditional marriage contract and the employment contract were unremarkable components of a free democratic society; that is, they did not analyze the place of the political fiction of property in the person (an idea that goes back to John Locke) in these two contracts (see Locke 1988 [1690]). The claim that it is pieces of property – capacities, talents, labor power, services – that are the subject of contract, not individuals themselves, allows relationships of subordination to be presented as free relations. In the traditional marriage contract, when a single woman said “I do,” she thereby became a wife, subordinate to her husband, who decided how the property in her person should be utilized. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, it was not until the early 1990s that the last remnant of the legal powers of husbands was finally eliminated. The employment contract can be seen as the exemplification of free labor if it is held that pieces of property are for sale, not, as in slavery, a person. But it is impossible for an individual to send a piece of the property in their person to a workplace. That is the fiction. The worker has to be there too if the property is to be “employed.” But workers are instructed how to use their property by a boss; by entering the employment contract, the worker becomes a subordinate.The employment contract was also central to the patriarchal structure. In Anglo-American countries, the postwar welfare state was built around paid work and men’s employment. Only the latter counted as the “contribution” required for benefits, and in the occupational structure men monopolized the skilled, supervisory, and better paid jobs. Women’s unpaid work was, properly, performed in the household. The heyday of the patriarchal structures analyzed in The Sexual Contract extended from the 1840s to the late 1970s. Since then, a great deal has changed, including the welfare state, the introduction of anti-discrimination laws, and social mores. Marriage law is now transformed (in various European countries and US states extending to

same-sex couples). The economy is also transformed by neoliberal policies; the jobs that sustained the male “breadwinner” of the traditional marriage contract have been largely swept away, the employment contract is “flexible,” and economic insecurity is widespread. The majority of wives, by choice and necessity,are in the labor force. A question currently being asked is whether, given such changes, the sexual contract is irrelevant. A definitive answer is difficult; many familiar elements of the sexual contract remain.Men occupy most of the authoritative positions in politics, the economy, higher education, the judiciary, and the military.Women earn less than men, and sexual harassment is still a feature of workplaces; they undertake most of the housework and childcare (including the women paid to do this work by the more affluent). The sex industry continues to grow and violence against women remains endemic. That “the sexual contract” is used in its second, general sense to refer to the subordination of women in many different social and cultural settings is testament to the persistence and ubiquity of men’s power. It is manifested in a variety of forms that extend, for example, from preference for boy babies, opposition to the education of girls, the legal powers of husbands, exclusion of women from inheritance of land, to obstacles that prevent women from earning a living. The subjection, ill-treatment, and neglect of women and girls are now well publicized, and bodies that range from a number of United Nations agencies to a multitude of women’s organizations around the globe are now working against it. Nevertheless, men’s government of women is one of the most deeply entrenched of all power structures, and the sexual contract is still vigorously defended.

References to the sexual contract conjure up the famous idea of a social or original contract, which originated in the work of political theorists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase is often used in popular political discourse to refer to an explicit or implicit agreement between a democratic state and its citizens. “The sexual contract” came into currency in political theory in the early 1990s, after the publication of The Sexual Contract in 1988 (Pateman 1988), and has come to be used in two senses. The specific sense refers to the arguments of the book and to Anglo-American societies; the more general sense refers to forms of domination of women by men in any society or culture. The Sexual Contract provides a reinterInterpretation from a feminist perspective of classic theories of an (hypothetical) original contract, together with an analysis of actual contracts, such as the marriage contract and employment contract, showing that these familiar contracts have been shaped in part by the ideas in the classic texts. The idea of an original agreement or contract was necessary for the classic theorists because of their premise of natural individual freedom and equality. The premise opened up the question of why self-governing individuals should sub- mit to be governed in “civil society,” that is, the modern state. The justification provided was that individuals freely gave their agreement by entering into an original contract. Feminist reinterpretation shows that, rather, the original contract is two-dimensional. One dimension is the social contract that justified government of citizens by the state. The second dimension is the sexual contract that justified the government of women by men and thus the patriarchal structure of the modern state. Three factors helped ensure that the sexual contract was ignored. First, political theorists failed to see that the modern patriarchal government is not paternal, the traditional rule of fathers over sons (e.g., Filmer 1991); instead it is fraternal, the rule of (a fraternity of) men over women, maintained and

reproduced through the mechanism of contract. Second, they did not pursue the political implications of the classic theorists’ claim that women, by nature, lacked the characteristics and capacities of free and equal individuals and, therefore, cannot be self-governing. Mary Astell’s question, posed in 1700 – why, if all men were born free, all women were born slaves? – was never mentioned (Astell 1996 [1700]). Third, political theorists accepted that the traditional marriage contract and the employment contract were unremarkable components of a free democratic society; that is, they did not analyze the place of the political fiction of property in the person (an idea that goes back to John Locke) in these two contracts (see Locke 1988 [1690]). The claim that it is pieces of property – capacities, talents, labor power, services – that are the subject of contract, not individuals themselves, allows relationships of subordination to be presented as free relations. In the traditional marriage contract, when a single woman said “I do,” she thereby became a wife, subordinate to her husband, who decided how the property in her per- son should be utilized. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, it was not until the early 1990s that the last remnant of the legal powers of husbands was finally eliminated. The employment contract can be seen as the

exemplification of free labor if it is held that pieces of property are for sale, not, as in slavery, a person. But it is impossible for an individual to send a piece of the property in their person to a workplace. That is the fiction. The worker has to be there too if the property is to be “employed.” But workers are instructed how to use their property by a boss; by entering the employment contract, the worker becomes a subordinate. The employment contract was also central to the patriarchal structure. In Anglo-American countries, the postwar welfare state was built around paid work and men’s employment. Only the latter counted as the “contribution” required for benefits, and in the

occupational structure men monopolized the skilled, supervisory, and better paid jobs. Women’s unpaid work was, properly, performed in the household. The heyday of the patriarchal structures analyzed in The Sexual Contract extended from the 1840s to the late 1970s. Since then, a great deal has changed, including the welfare state, the introduction of anti-discrimination laws, and social mores. Marriage law is now transformed (in various European countries and US states extending to same-sex couples). The economy is also transformed by neoliberal policies; the jobs that sustained the male “breadwinner” of the traditional marriage contract have been largely swept away, the employment contract is “flexible,” and economic insecurity is widespread. The majority of wives, by choice and necessity, are in the labor force. A question currently being asked is whether, given such changes, the sexual contract is irrelevant. A definitive answer is difficult; many familiar elements of the sexual contract remain. Men occupy most of the authoritative positions in politics, the economy, higher education, the judiciary, and the military. Women earn less than men, and sexual harassment is still a feature of workplaces; they undertake most of the housework and childcare (including the women paid to do this work by the more affluent). The sex industry continues to grow and violence against women remains endemic.

That “the sexual contract” is used in its second, general sense to refer to the subordination of women in many different social and cultural settings is testament to the persistence and ubiquity of men’s power. It is manifested in a variety of forms that extend, for example, from preference for boy babies, opposition to the education of girls, the legal powers of husbands, exclusion of women from inheritance of land, to obstacles that prevent women from earning a living. The subjection, ill-treatment, and neglect of women and girls are now well publicized, and bodies that range from a number of United Nations agencies to a multitude of women’s organizations around the globe are now working against it. Nevertheless, men’s government of women is one of the

most deeply entrenched of all power structures, and the sexual contract is still vigorously defended.

REFERENCES Astell, Mary. 1996 [1700]. “Some Reflections upon Marriage.” In Mary Astell: Political Writings, edited by Patricia Springborg, 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Filmer, Sir Robert. 1991 [1680]. Filmer: Patriar- cha and Other Writings, edited by Johann P. Sommerville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pateman, Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cam- bridge: Polity Press and Stanford: Stanford Unithe university Press. Locke, John. 1988 [1690]. Two Treatises of Govern- ment, edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press....