Simon Copland

Genes and the Bioimaginary,by Professor Deborah Lynn Steinberg, investigates whether the foundations of much genetic research are scientifically sound.

 

Originally published in The Guardian, 27 August, 2015

The last few decades have seen what some describe as a ‘genetic revolution’. Advances in genetic science have seen genes become all encompassing in political and scientific discussion.

Do a quick survey on recent stories for example and you will find research that claims ‘intelligence, creativity and bipolar disorder may share underlying genetics’ and a much-reported story that found that Holocaust survivors may have passed on the trauma to their children through their genes. Genetics has come to explain almost everything about our identities, whether it is our weight, our sexuality, or even if we are likely to become a criminal.

But is this based on sound science, or instead a cultural phenomenon using science to back it up? That is among the questions Professor Deborah Lynn Steinberg asks in her new book Genes and the Bioimginary.

Professor Steinberg, who researches gender, culture and media studies at the University of Warwick, has been studying the encounters between genes and culture for many years now. Steinberg began working on this issue over twenty years ago through an investigation into genetics, reproduction and the idea of ‘progress’. In this latest book she has expanded on this to look at genetic revolution as a whole. 

In Genes and the Bioimaginary Steinberg investigates the cross between genetic research and our society. Steinberg argues that “culture — including science — forms the context, locus and foundation of the search for genes.” In other words, genetic science both shapes culture and is shaped by culture, or as Steinberg explained to me “the popular has infused the scientific even as the scientific has infused the popular.” 

What does this actually mean? Most scientists will likely tell you that science is ‘objective’. Science presents the facts and it is up to society to interpret these facts and decide how to use them. Steinberg argues however it isn’t as simple as that, particularly when it comes to genetics. Culture doesn’t just define how we interpret the science, but the very production of the science itself.

Steinberg uses a number of case studies to emphasise this fact. Let’s have a look at a couple.

In one chapter Trace: On Genes and Crime Steinberg investigates the search for a ‘criminal gene’. This is potentially the greatest example of culture influencing the scientific debate. In this chapter Steinberg investigates the research that lead to the production of The Genetics of Criminal and Anti-Social Behaviour in the 1990s, a major symposium bringing together research on genetic criminology. The purpose of the symposium was simple — to investigate whether genes can influence our likelihood of engaging in criminal or anti-social behaviour. Researchers believed they found a positive correlation,  — one researcher for example stating that ‘genes are likely to influence the occurrence of criminal behaviour in a probabilistic manner by contributing to individual dispositions that make a given individual more or less likely to behave in a criminal manner.’

It is here where Steinberg finds a problem. Put simply this research is trying to find a biological answer for what is inherently a cultural problem. ‘Crime’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ are social constructs, which change depending on our society at the time. What is considered a crime in one decade may be considered normal behaviour the next, making a ‘biological answer’ for crime very difficult to find indeed. Maybe the best example of this fact is that Governments around the world are now issuing marriage licenses to gay couples when homosexuality was considered a crime in the not-so-distant past.

In fact Steinberg argues that much of the genetic research, criminological and other, follows from this false premise. In another chapter she looks at the search for the gay gene, which is again the search for a genetic cause for a socially constructed identity. In doing so, Steinberg argues that gay gene research, which argues homosexuality is passed down by mothers, is based on clichéd social assumptions. As she said to me:

“In many different respects the premises of the research were all embedded in pre-existing cultural stereotypes and ideas about gay men and about their relationships with their mothers. They were, in a way, tired tropes.

What I was suggesting there is that it’s science from a false premise. The underlying assumptions that organise doing that kind of research were already problematic.”

So why is it that scientists are engaging in this form of research? To understand this it’s worth looking at another of Steinberg’s case studies — the impact of genetic research on women.

In her first chapter Steinberg looks at the role genetic research has played in reproductive processes. In doing so she argues that this research, by its nature, is predominantly focused on the female body, both framing women’s bodies as to blame for reproductive problems, and then implementing often intrusive procedures to solve that ‘problem’. We can see this predominantly through the development of IVF capabilities, an intrusive and often painful medical procedure that only impacts women; men’s role may be active, but the process is not bodily invasive for them. Steinberg argues:

“The adversarial construction of the female body is heavily leveraged by the adversariality that pervades the ‘culture wars’ surrounding abortion and the larger questions of women’s bodily sovereignty, reproductive rights and (de)legitimacy as citizens and social actors.

“In this context, the ‘guilty’ burden of genetic risk is, I would suggest, disproportionately weighted onto the female body, whose reproductive processes are already viewed with concern, if not opprobrium with dominant and legal discourse.”

It is here that we can see the paradoxical role of genetic research in modern society. Genetics has been used both to enforce and upend our social norms and constructions. The best examples here are the search for the gay gene and genetic research involving women. While Steinberg expected gay gene research to result in a moral panic about homosexuality, for example, what she found was that it was met with more liberal responses — calls for instance that the gay gene should be used to promote gay rights. The moral panic arose instead about the possibility that women would abort pregnancies that might result in gay offspring. Indeed, genetic research prospects are frequently met with calls to ban abortion based on genetics, in turn enforcing control of female bodies through the restriction of abortion rights. These trends match our social response to these issues, with gay rights advancing across the Western World while abortion rights go backwards. 

It is in this context that Steinberg argues that genetics has become a ‘spectacle’. Genes have become all-encompassing, capturing our cultural and media imaginations in a way science often fails to do. Herein lies the problem however. In capturing the imagination in this way the scientific debate is giving legitimacy to the cultural assumptions it is based upon — whether it is the existence of a criminal gene or the control of female bodies.

It is here where Steinberg comes up with a controversial, and extremely thought provoking conclusion. At the end of the book Steinberg professes an ‘antipathy for genes’ and a strong ‘desire to repudiate them’. While she acknowledges the scientific reality of the existence of gene she admits a wish this wasn’t the case, a desire for us to reject the genetic revolution and all that it holds. As she argues:

“My disaffection for genes arises in part from the instabilities or illogic I perceive in the characterisation of genes as facts. But it is more than this; it is because the conditions of genes — the realities that produced the knowability of genes and that in turn, genes produce — disturb me.”

It is here where Genes and the Biomaginary challenges us in ways we probably hadn’t imagined. Steinberg argues that the seductions of genetic research are based in the very things that genes can’t explain. What makes genetic science attractive thus lies in part in fantasies of mastery and control of human uncertainties: securing identity, preventing crime or illness, fostering desired capabilities, easing suffering, righting wrongs.

Steinberg not only questions the impacts of scientific research but the social conditions and cultural context that make it persuasive. In doing so she opens up fascinating discussions about not just the politics of science, but the purpose of it as a field. It is for this reason this book is worth reading.

Genes and the Bioimaginary: Science, Spectacle, Culture, by Deborah Lynn Steinberg is published by Ashgate: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409462552

Is Pride still relevant? This weekend I went to Glasgow Pride, and the alternative event Free Pride Glasgow in order to find out.

 

Originally published in ByLine, 25 August, 2015

Pride forms a standard part of the gay political calendar. It is the one day in the year queers take the over the streets, asserting ourselves and our sexuality. I have attended many prides in my life, and recently I have realised how formulaic they have become — a parade through the streets followed by some sort of part. This formula has been criticised by many as being too commercialised and completely de-politicised.

But what could an alternative look like? This weekend I attended one of the UK’s largest pride events, Glasgow Pride, and an alternative event, Free Pride Glasgow, in order to find out.

Traveling to Glasgow from Edinburgh with my dad and my parter Martyn we could feel the vibe the moment we arrived the city. Rainbows seem to be hovering over Glasgow, with major businesses, churches and public buildings all getting in the spirit. The sun was out and people were already cheering and blowing their vuvuzelas as they headed to the event. The city had a festive mood.

We started the day by going to the main Pride March. The march starts and ends at Green Square, right next to the River Clyde. It is here where the controversy over Glasgow Pride sits as well. After the march revellers are corralled back in to the park to attend the afternoons festivities — a family fair day in the middle of the park. In recent years however Pride organisers have started to charge for this part of the event — £5 last year, and £10 this year. It is this fee that lead to the creation of Free Pride Glasgow.

It is worth here discussing some of the criticisms of modern pride events. From its very beginnings Pride has been the pinnacle of the politicisation of queer identity. “We’re here, we’re queer and we’re proud” was the calling of a movement — an assertion that we will get on the streets to fight for our gender and sexual freedom.

Yet, many feel this has been lost. Pride’s become more of a celebration, and a chance for major corporations to make a profit. That’s a problem. While middle class gays and lesbians have much better lives now, trans* people still die in the streets, young queers face huge mental health issues and our society has not turned away from many of the gender and sexual norms that define our lives. Poverty is still a major issue, making many of our wins often feel irrelevant. There is still much to do.

I can feel this problem from the moment I arrive. Glasgow Pride is huge, with thousands gathering in the park and creating an extremely festive mood. Yet, I immediately notice little under that festivity. Most of the larger floats were operated by huge corporations — Tesco, Sainburys, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Nandos, amongst others. These floats, by their nature, are more interested in selling products that advancing LGBTIQ causes. Staff hand out branded rainbow flags, free products and stickers — the whole event being a mass opportunity for free advertising.

Yet, the disconnect goes well beyond that. As I march alongside the thousands of revellers I begin to realise that is what we have become — revellers. Trucks blast classic ‘gay’ pop hits, with marchers either dancing along side or walking in virtual silence. There was no chanting, no slogans, no feeling of a need to fight at all. It was very polite.

The epitome of this culture comes back to the afternoons festivities. After a short period of disturbing the peace we were sent into a park on the edge of the city , away from the prying eyes of the public. This event was designed to be ‘family friendly’, a whole lot of fun and very little else. The message felt clear — our fights are over, the party can begin.

We however decided not go to that event and wandered instead to Free Pride Glasgow. Free Pride Glasgow was established as a direct response to the main pride charging for entry to their event, and in turn became a critique of the direction of the pride movement as a whole. A collective came together to design an event that was not only free, but political as well.

The event started at two but after a drink in the city my dad, Martyn and I didn’t make it there until about four. It was held in the rooms of the Glasgow School of Art Students Association, and from the moment you arrive you can feel the difference.

The event was split into a few different rooms — one for performances and stalls and another for talks and discussions. We stationed ourselves in the performance room, sitting on the hard wooden floor and listening to the poetry and music that ran through the day.

In almost every way this event lacked the professionalism of the main pride festivities. The banners and signs (as above) were hand made, the stalls sitting on old fold out tables, the performers, who I’m assuming were not paid for their attendance, getting up and introducing themselves as they progressed through the day. While this may not sound like a good way to run the day to me it was extremely refreshing.

In a recent essay on sex and capitalism I noted that one of the major arguments by capitalist theorists is that the economic freedom provided by capitalism allows for a unique form of identity expression as well. Capitalism, it is argued, gives us the space to express ourselves how we want, and it creates the drive for corporations to sponsor equality as a way to boost their own brand.

Yet, in attending pride I noticed how this argument falls flat. In a system based not only on the needs of profit, but also on the needs of the nuclear family, the form of expression is very restricted — pride events must be professional and ‘family friendly’ as a way to ensure it fits in line with our mainstream cultural practices. More importantly than this Pride events must be reject the radicalisation of previous parts of the movement — a radicalisation that threatens the state and capitalist class, but more importantly the business sponsors who “allow the event to happen”. This is why we see large corporate trucks blasting pop music and not a single chant in sight, and why we’ve seen pride organisers criticise what they consider to be the ‘extremist’ parts of the LGBTIQ community.

This is where Free Pride Glasgow was different. While mainstream pride is advertised as a way for queers to come out and show pride in their identity, it was in the alternative event where I felt this was more of reality. Free Pride felt to me far more authentic, primarily as it did not allow money to dictate how it should look. Each action, each moment, each expression felt spontaneous. People were enjoying the space in the way they wanted to, rather than in the way they felt they had to.

However there is an issue here. While Free Pride to me felt far more authentic there was still something missing. This, I believe goes to heart of the problem with pride itself. While the process of coming out and being proud has clearly had a positive impact on queer rights, as a political statement this is not sufficient. Coming out and being proud is still in some ways a privileged thing to do, one that taps in to a capitalist idea that equality is solely about the ability to express who you want to be as an individual. I say this as someone who has done some pretty public ‘coming outs’ of my own.

Yet coming out is not sufficient as it misses the notion of community. It makes equality all about the individual, rather than the collective whole. This is how we see rights debates split into different identity groups (gay, lesbian, bi, trans* etc.) with little critical discussion of gender and sexual oppression as a whole.

Here is where I believe that while Glasgow Free Pride made a great start, it also highlighted how much more we have to do. Whilst the day was an important political critique, it was also one still heavily embedded in this form of identity politics. The politics was focused around creating a ‘safe space’, while the talks were almost exclusively focused on the rights of particular marginalised groups — asexuals, bisexuals, trans* people, sex workers etc. Whilst these groups clearly deserve and need this space, at the same time more overarching discussion is still needed. The event, while being a much safer space, in many ways maintained a LGBTIQ rights agenda that took an individualised approach to equality, whilst not looking at gender and sexual liberation as a whole.

This is not an attack on the organisers of Free Pride, but rather a reflection on the nature of our movement. Battered by years of debate on gay marriage the LGBTIQ movement has found itself caught in a very liberal rights agenda. This is why we see so many in the mainstream turning to celebration. Their rights have been won, so why would we need to continue to fight? Let’s “be happy” (the slogan of this year’s main pride).

Free Pride was different however in that it didn’t accept this. And for that reason alone it felt like a significant step up from the mainstream event. However, just like the rest of us, I don’t think it has found the answers just yet. But in asking the question it made an important first step. In doing so I hope Free Pride moves well beyond the confines of just this one event.

 

 

 

New legislation introduced into the US state of Ohio would ban abortion if the reason is a child having down syndrome.

This sort of legislation has become part and parcel with the debate around genetic research. From discussions about down syndrome to gender and sexuality many fear genetic pre-natal research will result in women aborting children they were otherwise going to have.

I have to say I am uneasy about this whole thing. There is a genuine fear here that genetics could become eugenics — and that is not something we want.

But in saying that there is absolutely no way I could support this legislation or any legislation like it.

Here is one thing I believe: a woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body. No ifs, no buts.

While these abortions may make some uneasy therefore, it is not anyones rights to decide what a woman does with her body. That is the case whether it is because a woman does not think she can support a child or because she’s discovered the child has down syndrome, is a boy or girl, or is gay. No ifs, no buts.

How to stop these feared mass abortions then? First, I suspect our fears are much less than many whip up and that the fears are just a way to push an anti-abortion agenda.

But maybe another solution would be to stop our obsessive focus with searching for genes to explain every part of our selves. Maybe we could accept that some parts of us just ‘are’ and deal with the consequences — positive and negative — of that. Stop our obsessive search for genes and maybe we could stop the fear peddling around them.

What do you think? Would you support a bill like this?

Part two of my essay on the connections between sex and capitalism.

Originally published in Byline, 19 August, 2015

Welcome to part two of my essay on the connection between capitalism and sexual relations.

In part one of my essay we looked at prehistoric families and the rise of agriculture. It was this major change, I argued, that led to the development of much of the social stratification we still see today — the patriarchy and the class system.

This week we’re going to jump ahead 10,000 years and to the rise of global industrial capitalism in the 1800s.

***

Let’s start by looking at sexual relations before the rise of global capitalism.

This is of course a generalisation, but in the 18th and 19th Century, prior and during the industrial revolution, families were largely formed around the ‘Sex Contract’ we talked about in part one of this essay. At this time the majority of people lived in rural areas and survival was as constant struggle. In doing so, marriage was not about love, but instead about ensuring the economic stability. Families — primarily parents — entered into contracts with each other; ones that provided resources for a woman and fidelity, and ideally good genes, for a man.

Industrial capitalism fundamentally changed this. Following the birth of the factory, people flooded to cities, disconnecting themselves from previous economic and social ties. People, including women, were able to create their own identities away from their families. In particular industrial capitalism allowed women to work, giving them significant economic independence.

This had a major impact on our sexual selves. For women it meant they were able to disconnect themselves from the economic traditions of marriage, in turn deciding to marry men they loved. In this time we also see the development of homosexuality as a distinct identity. Gays and lesbians were able to come together in clubs and meeting places and assert their sexuality as being part of their self.

It is important to note here this has often been the argument made by many pro-capitalist theorists. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Hayek both argue that capitalism gives us the greatest space to create our true identities, whether economically, or sexually. In a debate I had with libertarian Julie Novak last yearshe made this exact point, stating:

“markets help economically emancipate LGBT people, and could even play a part in eliminating antiqueer prejudice. Greater economic freedom makes it even more costly to discriminate.”

Yet, despite these arguments the rise in industrial capitalism was actually followed by a great period of sexual puritanism. The Victorian era was also the time of the desexualisation of women in public debate and the great trials of queer pioneers such as Fanny and Stella and the writer Oscar Wilde. Despite the theory, the great time of sexual freedom did not eventuate. What happened?

We can boil this answer down to the needs of capitalism for an ever-growing workforce. Capitalism relies on a growing economy, in turn requiring an ever-increasing workforce. Industrial capitalism needed a huge population to work the factories to create the wealth for the capitalist class.

It was this need that first put women into factories, but soon a contradiction was found. While women were needed in the factory, capitalists were unwilling to provide any support while they were childrearing. In their essay “Rethinking Women’s Oppression”, Johanna Brenner and Maria Ramas explain:

“Biological facts of reproduction — pregnancy, childbirth, lactation — are not readily compatible with capitalist production, and to make them so would require capital outlays on maternity leave, nursing facilities, childcare, and so on. Capitalists are not willing to make such expenditures, as they increase the costs of variable capital without comparable increases in labour productivity and thus cut into rates of profit. In the absence of such expenditures, however, the reproduction of labour power becomes problematic for the working class as a whole and for women in particular.”

With the unwillingness of capitalists to pay for child care or maternity leave parents were forced to either neglect their kids or looking after them the unsanitary space of the factory. With this the infant mortality rate shot through the roof. In Manchester, for example, there were a recorded 26,125 deaths per 100,000 thousand children under the age of one, three times the rate of mortality of non-industrial areas. This, as Tad Tietze argues, “created severe problems for the system’s ability to ensure the reproduction of the working class.” Capitalists were literally watching as their next swathe of workers died in front of their eyes.

For Brenner and Ramas it was this that lead to the creation of the “family-household system”, an idea introduced by Michèle Barrett, described as a system “in which a number of people, usually biologically related, depend on the wages of a few adult members, primarily those of the husband/father, and in which all depend primarily on the unpaid labour of the wife/ mother for cleaning, food preparation, child care, and so forth.” This is the nuclear family we still see today.

One question you may want to ask is why would women put up with this? With their new economic independence, why would they dare enter into the “family-household system”. First, capitalists, the ruling political class, and some parts of the male workforce changed the rules — from banning women from working after they married to introducing a ‘family wage’ — wages available to men to look after the whole family. Doctrines such ‘coverture’ remained in tact — a legal precedent that meant married couples were seen as one person, a person controlled by the man. Men maintained all of their power, making economic independence much more difficult for women.

But we also saw cultural changes as well. As noted above the rise of capitalism led to a shift to love-based marriage. While this gave women much more independence, it also made things very difficult. Instead of having marriages, and in turn economic stability arranged, women had to ‘fight’ for it. Hunter Oatman Stanford argues women did this by becoming the perfect homemaker. The “cult of the domestic” was developed, “centering on a stereotype that desexualized women and made child-rearing their primary goal. In her role as a domestic angel, the perfect wife was completely pure in body and mind, submitting to her husband’s erotic advances, but never desiring or initiating sex herself.” This standard was developed and pushed heavily by the ruling class. Queen Victoria for example was an advocate both for love-based unions, and female puritanism. A new culture of de-sexualised women was created, one that fitted perfectly within the family-household system.

The family-household system also had a major impact on our other majorly oppressed sexual minority — gays and lesbians. As noted above industrial capitalism allowed gays and lesbians to come together to form their own identity. The ruling class however quickly saw this as a major threat as it discouraged people from having children . The homosexual identity needed to be squashed.

Here again we see a contradiction. Capitalism created the homosexual identity but in turn could not survive if the identity flourished. With the underlying basis of individualism unable to change however capitalists worked to defeat homosexuality in another manner — through pathologising the homosexual identity.

We can see how the ruling class did this through the application of Michel Foucault’s theory of the Scientia Sexualis — or the creation of a scientific approach to sexuality. ‘Abnormal’ sexualities were controlled and cured through the modern magic of science — whether it was shock treatment or imprisonment in asylums. The new homosexual identity was treated as a medical abnormality, one that needed curing in order to bring people back into the familial fold.

***

It is here how we see the connection between modern capitalism and our modern sexual oppression. The relationship between capitalism and sex remains to this day.

The “family-household system”, or as most of us call it, the nuclear family, is still our dominant form of relationships. This is not just expressed through therejection of polyamorous unions and the stigmatisation of the promiscuous. The economic, gender and sexual roles of this system remain dominant until this day.

Women, for example, still conduct the vast majority of the housework, and are in turn expected to spend more time in the home. When children are born it is women who take on the vast majority of care duties, with mothers still taking the vast majority of family leave. The intransigent wage-gap ensures men continue to have greater economic independence than women, meaning women rely more on men for their economic survival. When divorce does occur (as it often does) it has greater economic impact on women than men.

But it goes beyond that. Much of the early nature of the patriarchy revolved around men directly owning women. With the growth of agriculture women fell into the realm the property of men. While that legally no longer occurs men are still engrained with the belief they have the right to control female bodies. This occurs through the restriction of abortion laws or through constant sexual violence of abuse.

While gays and lesbians have had major wins over the past few decades, these need to be questioned as well. The acceptance into marriage, while seen by some as a major victory, in many ways represents a welcoming in to the family-household system, bringing with it many of the expectations the system holds. This is why gays are now increasingly expected to live in monogamous unions, have children and scorn promiscuous sex. We are increasingly expected to enter the family and all the requirements of it.

                                                                             ***

It is in this way that we can see the connection between sex and capitalism, and it is these relationships my book will explore in depth. Starting from our prehistoric society I will explore the history of the family through the rise of capitalism to how the relationships look today. Sex and capitalism are inherently connected and we cannot discuss one without the other.

Some of you may have noticed that I haven’t blogged much recently. That’s because it has been a pretty crazy month, and I have just run out of time. So what has been happening? I thought it would be good to do a round up!

ByLine 

The big news is that this week I launched my crowdfunding campaign at ByLine.com for my book, Sexy Capitalism. The crowdfunder is designed to raise me enough funds so I can get properly started on a first draft — something I can send to a publisher.

The campaign is going well so far. At time of writing I have been going for just over two days and am 15% funded, which is really great. But there is still 85% to go! So it would be really great if you could all jump on board!

You can support the campaign here: https://www.byline.com/project/17

The Fringe

Oh my god it is The Fringe! I have been told by so many people that Edinburgh radically changes during The Fringe and people were right. The city has just changed in the last week — the streets are full, things are happening everywhere and it is just much more lively.

I’ve been to five shows so far, not a bad start! On the first night my partner and I went to some bad comedy, but still worth it. In particular we went to a show where comedians commentate C-grade movies. The movie in question was titled “Santa Conquers the Martians” and was much funnier than the comedians themselves, and luckily funny enough that the night was great.

Otherwise we’ve been to a show called Festival of the Spoken Nerd, which was some really great nerdy comedy fun and last night my dad (who is in town) and I went to a Looking Through A Glass Onion — a show about John Lennon. It was really excellent. But the most interesting has probably been Dicing with Dr Death by Dr Philip Nitschke. I wasn’t really sure what it was about, but the show could be best described as a workshop on how to kill yourself if you ever find yourself in that position (no wonder we had to agree to a waiver saying we wouldn’t follow the instructions literally). I have no intention of following any of Nitschke’s instructions, but it is interesting in that it is something I found useful. The show was also really entertaining — Nitschke basically spoke for the entire hour, but he was never boring. Really worth seeing.

Travel travel travel

Of course this all comes after some pretty awesome travel. My partner Martyn and I went on a holiday to Paris and London and had a great time. I have to say Paris did not grab me — it is a beautiful city, but that was the most I could say about it. And all the potential interesting parts — Montmartre in particular had the feeling of having become a tourist attraction about a place that used to be interesting.

But I love London. London has the same tourist issue, but at the same time I feel it is more organic and interesting and different. We stayed with some friends in Peckham which was a really fascinating part of town (anywhere else and being that far out you’d be in the suburbs, but not in London) and we went to some great exhibitions — the Wellcome Collection and the National Library were two big highlights. Also met up with some good friends and everything was great.

And to add to that my dad is now in town and from tomorrow we’re doing a long weekend in the Scottish Highlands. There will be whiskey and beautiful places, so can’t complain. Am looking forward to it!

***

Phew! That’s it for the moment. No wonder I’m a little tired. Maybe time for a nap?

Part one of a two part essay investigating how sexual and gender oppression are inherent within capitalism.

Originally published in ByLine, 12 August 2015

My thesis is that the history of sexual relations has always been connected with our economic system. More specifically I argue that modern sexual oppression, and how we understand sexual freedom, is inherently linked to capitalism.

So how is this the case, and why is it important? In an essay split over two parts I am going to look at how sexual relations developed via capitalist society, and how this continues to play out today.

In part one I am going to go back in time and look at sexual relations before capitalist society. It is through understanding the history of sexual relations, I argue, that we understand them today.

                                                                           ***

When I first came out as gay at the age of 16 I remember my mum being worried my sexuality would make life more difficult for me. It was a genuine concern, and as a nervous sixteen year old, it was one of the big fears I had as well.

In reality, for me, it has not been the case. Being white, middle class, and from a wealthy city in Australia I’m doing pretty well for myself. I can honestly say that, as far as I’m aware, I’ve never been on the receiving end of any major life-changing discrimination.

This is a sign of great achievement. Of all areas of society, sexual and gender relations have probably seen the greatest shift over the past fifty years. It is easy to forget that at the birth of the second-wave feminist and gay liberation movements in the 60s and 70s women were still largely expected to live their entire lives in the home, while homosexuality remained illegal in most Western countries. Discussion of sex in the public sphere was extremely taboo. Much has certainly changed.

Yet, look a little deeper and at the same time little has changed as well. While gays can increasingly marry, other queers still face significant poverty, discrimination and violence. While some woman are reaching the top of our power structures, the wage gap remains seemingly intractable, violence against women takes lives every day of the week, and restrictions remain on abortion rights in most of the world. The freedoms we have won seem increasingly only available to a few, with the underlying factors of sexual and gender oppression remaining unmoved.

Why is this the case? Is it a matter of us just needing to be patient, or is it because of something much more fundamental? To answer this question we need to look at why sexual oppression occurs in the first place.

There have been many explanations of why sexual and gender oppression exists. Many feminists, for example, argue that male privilege comes down to a biological need for men to dominate, a need they have managed to exploit over different periods of history. For gays and lesbians the answer is often directed at religion and the massive influence it has had on our society.

I argue however that it comes down to something very different — economics.

To understand this we need to look at the most influential sexual institution in our society — the family. From the moment we are born we are all conditioned with values of the nuclear family. We’re told a simple story: you are destined to grow up, meet the boy or girl of your dreams — always of the opposite sex —, fall in love, get married and have children. You will search for this person from the moment you hit puberty and will not give up until you find “the one”.

This is the story of us all entering the modern nuclear family, a relationship that has a range of values imbued in it. The nuclear family allows us to search for one partner and one partner only. That person will remain with us for the rest of our lives, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health. If the relationship ends, as more and more do these days, it is a failure. And of course you will have children, and if you don’t you will be followed around for the rest of your life being asked “when are you going to have children?” or “why didn’t you have children?”

Many see this as the natural way for humans to mate. In fact many scientists have tried to claim that monogamous unions are rooted in our biology. They use evidence such as the supposed ‘low female libido’ or the existence of monogamous unions in one of our close relatives, the gibbon, to back up these claims. The nuclear family, and the patriarchy that comes with it, is as old as society itself.

This story is based in Charles Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Darwin argued that due to their need to carry and nurture children women have a great investment in their offspring than men. They are therefore much more hesitant to participate in sexual activity, creating a “conflict” between the two genders.

This conflict leads men and women to negotiate what anthropologist Helen Fisher calls the “Sex Contract”. With women producing such “unusually helpless and dependent offspring” they require a mate who can look after both them and their children. Men however are only willing to do this if they can be guaranteed the child is theirs — otherwise they are investing their resources for the genes of another man. In turn men demand fidelity; an assurance their genetic line is being maintained. A contract is formed — resources for fidelity.

In many ways the Sex Contract is exactly how modern relationships have been formed (more on that soon). However, unlike how many of these theorists have suggested it is not actually a ‘natural’ way for humans to get together. Evidence suggests that early hunter gatherer families actually looked very different to this. Many biologists and anthropologists argue early hunter gather societies lived largely in polyamorous relationships where much of the social stratification we see today was non-existent. In fact anthropologists say people in this period practiced “fierce egalitarianism” — that is egalitarianism that is not just a mistake but a thought-out-process. And this was not just for men — women were largely seen to have a high level of authority and power.

That is not to paint a picture of a “nobel savage”. People lived this way primarily as it allowed their communities to survive. Hunter-gather societies existed as small roaming groups where men hunted and women largely gathered. In these societies community was everything — everyone relied on everyone else in order to survive. As Jared Diamond explains, with no ability or need to store or hoard resources, “there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others”. This was true as well for our sexual relations. As the co-author of Sex at Dawn Christopher Ryan explains, “overlapping, intersecting sexual relationships strengthened group cohesion and could offer a measure of security in an uncertain world.”

So how did the Sex Contract, and the modern family, arise?

The modern family has grown, changed and adapted significantly since our prehistoric origins, but its modern ideals can be found in the birth of agriculture. Hunter gatherer societies did have gender roles — men hunted and women gathered. But this did not mean women had less control. In fact with hunting being a very hit and miss game, women provided the majority of food, and had significant authority and influence in social and family affairs.

Agriculture however changed this. When we began farming humans began to settle down, and in turn start accumulating. With farming we first developed the concept of private property, a notion that changed our society and our sexual relationships dramatically.

Private property did not necessarily change our gender roles, it just changed the value provided to them. Moving from their position as hunters men began to look after the farm, while women largely stayed in the home looking after domestic duties. As resources were now derived solely from the farm, wealth landed in the hands of men. On top of this, as farming required significant increases in labour capacity, women were increasingly forced to stay at home to look after a growing family.

Here we see a major shift in sexual relations. No longer economically independent, and losing much of the community that existed in hunter-gather periods, women became more dependent on men. But men required something in return. Accumulating wealth they now needed someone to pass that wealth on to. In turn men demanded fidelity — the assurance their children were theirs. Here we see the defeat of “mother right” and matrilineal descent. Friedrich Engels described the impact of this:

“The overthrow of mother right was the world historic defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. . . . In order to make certain of the wife’s fidelity and therefore the paternity of his children, she is delivered over unconditionally into the power of the husband; if he kills her, he is only exercising his rights.”

Hence we can see how the rise of agriculture and the class society brought much of our sexual oppression with it. Agriculture, and the idea of private property that came with it, led to the development of the patriarchy, and the loss of much of the sexual freedom that existed in hunter-gather societies. It created our first social stratification.

But this is just the beginning. These changes took hundreds of years but were probably some of the most significant in human history. But it is not the entire story we have to tell.

What happens next is what we’ll explore in part two of this essay.