Abstract
This paper attempts to reconsider Marxist feminism from the viewpoint of the discursive construction of the subject.
In post-linguistic turn feminist theory, gender categories and sexual identity have been thought of as being constructed by discourse. Judith Butler, a feminist-deconstructionist, suggests that the subject is performatively produced by speech acts. However, some researchers, such as Nancy Fraser, criticize these theoretical tendencies for emphasizing the “cultural” dimension and overlooking the “material” dimension.
Meanwhile, Marxist feminism has focused on the “material” dimension of sexism in modern society in accord with the tradition of Marxist theory. Many feminists, including Butler and Fraser, put a high value on Marxist feminism. However, we should reinterpret the theoretical framework of Marxist feminism in terms of the anti-essentialism since this framework assumes gender categories and sexual identity as given and fixed.
This paper begins with a review of the significance of Marxist feminism, suggesting that Marxist feminism does not adequately theorize the discursive mechanism of sexual subjection. Secondly, I describe the relationship of sexual subjection and the public/private dichotomy in the social space by referring to Butler’s term of “(un)subject.” Finally, I reconsider the concept of the “material basis of patriarchy” in Marxist feminism. This paper insists that indeterminacy of “inside” and “outside” of society means that “the material” and “the symbolic” cannot be mutually reducible.
