|
The Sexual Contract Twenty-Five Years Later: A Response
by Carole Pateman
I would like to thank the contributors
for their generous acknowledgment of the anniversary of The Sexual Contract and for their commentaries. It is hard to believe that a quarter century
has passed since my book was published, yet, as the contributors point out, a good deal has changed. But not everything looks different; for
example, despite advances by women, men still monopolize the authoritative
positions in politics, the judiciary, higher education, and the economy, while
women still earn less than men and are more likely to be poor than men.
Fashions in terminology also change. I
made use of the term "patriarchy" but, as Robyn Marasco observes, in certain Anglo-American academic
feminist circles patriarchy now has a very old-fashioned ring (but I am not
sure that it is so true elsewhere). My attempt in chapter two to
show that patriarchy had a history was perhaps not successful. Is its use to
speak of the power of men over women also now seen as an indication of being
mired in a "binary"? However,
if the term patriarchy is abandoned, the
question becomes what should replace it. "The terms of feminist discourse," Marasco writes, "must be drawn from new realities." But first it has to be decided what exactly are the "new
realities" and how they should
be characterized. One enormous change is the much
greater extent of the power exercised today by the economic doctrine of
neoliberalism than was the case twenty-five years
ago, and I shall touch on that again later.
Another obvious candidate for a new
reality is marriage. My book focused on the traditional marriage contract in
Anglo-American countries and its legal underpinnings; the latter have been
transformed since 1988, but some of the assumptions and attitudes that they
embodied are harder to eradicate. Moreover, as Jack Jackson emphasizes, in the
past twenty-five years "the
law has moved from viewing same-sex marriage as being unthinkable" to the position in 2013, where in a number of countries and a number of states
in the USA, it is now legal. Jackson also comments that criticism of the institution of marriage, still flourishing
when I was writing The Sexual Contract, is now rarely heard. This is one
of the more curious developments (as is the
extremely large sums of money that are spent on weddings) when, as
Marasco mentions, married couples now comprise slightly less than half of
American households (78 percent in 1950). But the public benefits
attached to marriage are numerous (for example,
while I was writing this response, the British Prime
Minister has announced legislation to give tax breaks to married couples) and exclusion from the benefits helped fuel campaigns for same-sex
marriage.
Gay marriage highlights the transformation
of marriage, but Jackson argues that it also shows that my analysis of the original
contract is wanting. He writes that "homosexuality
is cast out of the social contract" and
that it is "banished" from political life. Instead of women being "the
impossible signatory to the original contract" it is,
rather, "men who are not men, men who desire
men." Stories of original contracts are
stories about the creation of and justification of the power structures of the
modern state. They are also stories about incorporation into those structures.
None of the inhabitants of the state of nature are left out of the original
contract—but that is not the same as
saying that they are all signatories, or that they are all incorporated in the
same way. The original contract is made by men; women take no part in it, but
they are incorporated as men's subordinates. The sexual contract, one dimension
of the original contract, justifies (is said to justify) the government of
women by men across the three major institutions of the modern state: family (the marriage contract), economy (the employment contract), and citizenship (the social contract). Homosexual acts are
one form of sexuality, but does
the original contract also create "homosexual"
as a modern identity?
The
Sexual Contract is about
heterosexual relations. I endeavored to show how theoretical argument about one
dimension of the original contract helped shape the structures of the modern
state, and how fundamental theoretical assumptions are reflected in actual
contracts that reproduce men's domination within major institutions. Clearly
this perspective must, and does, leave a lot out. As Rousseau once remarked, it
is not possible to discuss everything at once. However, towards the close of my
book I state that my argument is actually less than half the story, as I had
been claiming, because the men who made the
original contract are white men. More recently, in a contribution to the study
of the racial contract, I have looked at the doctrine of terra nullius and the way in which the native peoples of North America and Australia, who
were not signatories to the original contract, were nonetheless incorporated
(in this case as "savage" or "uncivilized" peoples) into the territory and jurisdiction of the modern states that their colonizers
were constructing.1
Does my lack of attention to
homosexuality undermine my analysis? I would like to reassure Jackson, who
accuses me of being "at a loss to imagine sexual beings" who are not heterosexuals, that I have no difficulty on that score. He also
says that I imagine homosexuals as irrelevant to "the
sexual or social contract." On the latter point, I fear I must
plead guilty in part. Let me make two comments and pose some questions;
first, about the "social contract."
The Sexual Contract is about institutions that are (said to
be) created through the original contract, including marriage and (modern)
heterosexuality; it is not about individual practices
or identities. Jackson does not provide a story about homosexuals in the
original condition, or say anything about homosexuality in the seventeenth or
eighteenth centuries. The classic theorists of an original contract offer only
very few scattered, oblique remarks about unnatural practices, from which it is
unclear how prevalent they were in the state of nature.2 Portrayals of the state of nature, except for that
of Hobbes', include recognizable
heterosexual families. Of course, married men can and do engage in homosexual
practices, but that is different from "homosexual" as a contemporary identity.
Without further argument, it does not seem obvious that homosexuality was "cast
out" before the original pact was sealed.
One could perhaps tell a story about how in the natural condition some heads of
households go about their duties as masters and fathers, but sometimes engage
in homosexual activities. Is that sufficient for them to be denied
participation in the original contract? Once civil society is created, men, at
least in recent times, spend a good deal of time and effort on "policing" heterosexual masculinity (the "policing" that Jackson attributes to me was merely theoretical). Homosexuals are not
unique in the development of the modern state in being socially marginal,
subject to legal sanction, and having to form movements to
struggle for rights.
Be all that as it may, my second point is
about the sexual contract. Jackson
quotes one passage in which I mention homosexuality, but ignores another. My
argument was that government instituted by the original contract was fraternal
in form. On pages 192-193, I briefly mentioned "the
taboo" against homosexual relations between
members of the fraternity, and wrote, "there
is always a temptation to make the relation more than a matter of fellowship." I also wrote that if they succumbed to temptation, the
foundation of the original contract could be shaken. Re-reading this brief
passage twenty-five years later, my thoughts now are
that, rather than the original contract, it is the sexual contract that is at
issue. Jackson's comments raise an important question that has its staring
point in the possible implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. I argued
that the marriage contract, the employment contract and the social contract
were all connected. This was true of the traditional Anglo-American marriage
contract, but is it still true of the transformed marriage contract? Has the
connection between the marriage contract and the economy and citizenship been
weakened, even severed?
I would not agree with Marasco that "what
remains of the sexual contract are the private and public feelings attached to
it." The sexual contract is not only
about marriage and intimate relations between the sexes more generally; it is
about men's government over women throughout
the whole of social and political life, through politics, the economy, the law
and social attitudes. As I noted at the beginning of my response,
men still control most of the important positions in social, economic, and political life. Has the sexual contract begun to crumble, or crumble in
certain respects, or is it, or are parts
of it, beginning to take on a new form—a form
suited to transformed marriage laws and anti-discrimination
legislation in a more unequal,
diverse, commercialized, sexualized, and privatized society? The very large question of the character
of the changes over the last twenty-five
years is complicated by neoliberal economic reforms. I think that, in the
multitude of changes now taking place, it is too early for a definitive answer.
Still, it is questions such as these that need to be addressed.
Elisabetta Galeotti also discusses the
connection between the original contract and the marriage contract. She states
that a puzzle I am answering, is "why
had the law defining marriage and the family to be called ‘contract,'" when women were already excluded from the original pact. She argues
that I ignored private contracts, a feature of Roman law, in which the parties
were unequal, and that the marriage contract secures legitimate heirs for the
family property. In Hobbes' state of nature one reason why paternity is
uncertain is the absence of matrimonial laws, and for women to be parceled out
as subordinate wives, one to each man, is a way to attempt to overcome this
difficulty. But this consequence of the marriage contract is peripheral to my
own analysis. In fact, I posed a different question in The Sexual Contract: why was women's freedom both denied and affirmed in arguments about the
original contract and civil society? I discussed why contract, including
contracts about property in the person, is seen as the exemplar of freedom, and
discussed the peculiarities of the marriage contract as a "contract."
My answer was that if the claim that civil society (the modern state) is a
realm of freedom was not immediately to be doubted, then the whole population,
not merely half of it, had to enter at least one major contract.
Two
concepts that are central to my argument are property in the person and
subordination. For the most part, commentators on my book have had relatively
little to say about my argument about property in the person. Galeotti refers
to self-ownership but, as I have discussed
elsewhere, the two concepts are not synonymous.3 My argument is concerned with the consequences of voluntary entry into
contracts about property in the person. It
is not about unequal conditions of entry into contracts or
exploitation, significant though these problems are. As Galeotti acknowledges,
I am unlikely to agree that we should pursue the "hidden
potentialities" of self-ownership.
As she states, my argument is that "the
property paradigm of freedom is to be overcome." This
paradigm has been expanding apace with the power of neoliberalism.
Virtually nothing now escapes the category of private property, whether it is genetic materials, seeds, or formerly public services and assets (privatization). This means that contract
and the idea of property in the person, the latter still largely
unacknowledged, are more significant than ever but, strangely, Marasco states
that contract no longer has "the same purchase" as
when I wrote The Sexual Contract. Labor markets are being constructed
globally and so more and more people are entering employment contracts
(commentators have said even less about my dissection of the employment
contract than about property in the person). But employment contracts in the
Anglo-American countries are no longer typically for
jobs that in the 1980s still provided working-class men (the
"breadwinners") with secure employment and decent
wages and conditions. The industries in which such employment was located have
mostly been swept away, while jobs for women in the service sector have
multiplied. Today's jobs, for a "flexible" labor force, are increasingly
temporary, part-time, or "zero contracts," with
poor or no benefits and low wages. The neoliberal expansion has included the
markets that make up the multi-billion dollar, global sex industry, which has also
expanded enormously since I wrote my book.
And
this brings me to the "rather unfortunate episode," as Marasco calls it, of my discussion of prostitution. My definition of (modern)
prostitution has aroused her particular ire, and it is thus rather unfortunate
that she seems to have misunderstood what I was writing about. The Sexual
Contract, as I noted above, is about structures and institutions, and my
argument about prostitution is not about individual prostitutes but the institution
of prostitution, which is part of the trade in property in the person and part
of capitalism. No doubt my analysis could be improved upon, but only if the
criticisms are directed at what I actually wrote about rather than resting on such
fashionable notions as transgression, feelings, experiences, desires. To study the
experiences of prostitutes would require an ethnography, not an analysis in
political theory. I do not know if empirical evidence is available about the
proportion of prostitutes who enter the trade because of desire or who
experience even "a little bit" of satisfaction, but I would expect that it would be very far outweighed by
the proportion of those who enter for economic reasons, drug addiction, or
because of destitution. Most prostitutes are women (I left aside, as I noted in
my book, the not-inconsiderable demand for little
girls, and also male prostitutes). My definition is of an institution that
involves the exchange of money for sexual services (property in the person)
and, as an institution, has nothing to do with women's desire, but has a lot to
do with women's survival—and
the very large profits of those who control the global sex industry.
Notes
1 Carole Pateman, "The Settler Contract,"
in Carole Pateman and Charles Mills, Contract and Domination (2007). Since writing The Sexual Contract I have come to see that the original contract has three dimensions, the social
contract, the sexual contract and the racial contract. The three dimensions are
simultaneously brought into being as the original contract is sealed (none is
prior to the other; the sexual contract does not precede or provide grounds for "the social contract" as so many commentators assume).
2 Jackson is writing about male
homosexuals, not females.
3 Carole Pateman, "Self-Ownership and
Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale of Two Concepts", Journal
of Political Philosophy 10, no. 1 (2002): 20–53. |
|