BOOK REVIEWS   Letter From An Author - ASOKE BASU The Limits of Reform: Women, Capital and Welfare by Jennifer G. Schirmer - Reviewed by KRISTINE NELSON 542 Marxism and Domination: A Neo-Hegelian. Feminist, Psychoanalytic Theory of Sexual, Political and Technological Liberation, by Isaac D, Balbus - Reviewed by DAN LA BOTZ 53

Basu, Asoke

La Botz, Dan

Nelson, Kristine

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareVolume 10Issue 3 September Article 15September 1983Book ReviewsAsoke BasuStanford UniversityKristine NelsonUniversity of IowaDan La BotzFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jsswPart of the Social Work CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work atScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contactmaira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationBasu, Asoke; Nelson, Kristine; and La Botz, Dan (1983) "Book Reviews," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 10 : Iss. 3 ,Article 15.Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol10/iss3/15LETTER FROM AN AUTHORMr. Terrell has raised a number of criticisms in his review of our book,Poverty in America (with Ralph Segalman, not Seligman, as he erroneously writessix times) that require comment. He believes the book is "mean-spirited,sloppy, and pedantic...[and] is carelessly constructed, repetitive, and dated."Moreover, "the authors ignore facts and analyses that do not conform to theirthesis" and "complexity and multiple explanations are not the authors' strongpoints." I seriously disagree with these characterizations and maintain thata more careful reading of the book does not support these accusations. Forbrevity's sake, I will not undertake a point-by-point rebuttal, but confrontthe testier elements of his argument.First, Mr. Terrell simply misses 'the point of our argument when he writeswe "argue by accretion." The first ten pages of the book state, criticize, andsynthesize alternative and competing perspectives of poverty. On page 7, forexample, we note the inadequacies of the culture of poverty and situationalperspectives.Second, in the first chapter we never stated that our typology of marginal,transitional, and residual poor would capture the "human diversity" of a povertycommunity as an ethnographic study would. Our typology is an abstraction con-structed from a multitude of ethnographic studies of the poor. Since our studydoes not purport to be ethnographic, Mr. Terrell has erected a very weak straw-man to knock down.Third, Mr. Terrell overlooks the role the typology plays in our argument.We argue that the poor are not a homogeneous mass, that there are many causesof poverty (cultural and structural), that helping the poor move into themainstream of American society requires that poverty programs be tailored tomeet the specific needs of the poverty population the programs are intended tohelp, and that such programs are related to the country's overall economicneeds.Fourth, we do not rely "principally on the culture-of-poverty literatureof the 1960s." We reserve the culture-of-poverty explanation (with structuralmodifications) for the residual poor who are at risk of becoming America'stransgenerational poor; but we are not monists. In Chapter One, we clearlystate (p. 14): "The American black, the American Indian, and other minoritygroups, however, have often been held back by conditions and forces that haveprevented meaningful access to many of the facilities readily offered theimmigrants. These include effective education, consistent and fair wages,opportunities for upward economic mobility, and housing relatively free fromrestrictions."Fifth, we do not argue against public intervention. In the postscript(p. 369), we argue "a multistep pattern of assistance and services needs to beformulated for welfare, housing, education, and employment. Services andconstraints should be commensurate with the readiness of that segment of thepopulation to utilize both to their own and society's advantage." Given ourfour complex and interrelated problems, it is difficult to see how Mr. Terrellconcludes that "complexity and multiple explanations are not the atuhors'strong points." Parenthetically, the cost-effectiveness of continuing theGreat Society programs as they are presently constituted is open to criticism;however, space precludes me from challenging Mr. Terrell on this point.-540-Sixth, the use of the term "Negro" occurs in Chapter Two, which comparesthe assimilation experiences of early immigrants, refugee immigrants, and the"American Negro slave." Elsewhere in that historical chapter the term "Negro"and "black" are often used interchangeably, but "black" is the modal usage.The main objection we have to Mr. Terrell's comment is that we do not believethe use of the term "Negro" to be racist, nor is it an attempt to turn backthe historical clock.Finally, we believe Poverty in America provides the student of welfarewith an historical overview of poverty in America, relevant contemporarydata, and an analysis of all the major proposals for welfare reform. Sincewelfare reform has not been enacted under Presidents Carter and Reagan, thebook is hardly "dated." Lastly, Mr. Terrell failed to cite one major studypublished prior to 1979 which we ignored. Mr. Terrell should either substanti-ate his claim with evidence or withdraw this reckless charge.This comment does not answer all the criticisms raised by Mr. Terrell.I have, however, refuted his more explicitly formulated criticisms and submitthat a more careful and thoughtful reading of Poverty in America provides noevidence to support his characterization of our work. Let the reader judge.Asoke BasuVisiting ScholarHoover InstitutionStanford-541-THE LIMITS OF REFORM: WOMEN, CAPITAL AND WELFARE, by JENNIFER G. SCHIRMER.Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1982. 200 pp. $14.50 paper.KRISTINE NELSONThe University of IowaThe Limits of Reform is an important book, especially for those who harborillusions about the liberal state's ability and willingness to bestow fullequality on women. In her book, Jennifer Schirmer exposes the sexist truthbehind the liberal rhetoric of the Danish welfare state. She argues that the"structure of the labor market, the bureaucratic control of the corporatestate, and the traditional view of gender" (p. 43) combine to maintain women'sinequality. Specifically, the state depoliticizes and limits social conflictthrough social reform while protecting the interests of capital and intrudingon everyday life and the family in a process Schirmer calls "incorporatism"(pp. 33-34).Schirmer starts with a useful historical overview of the Danish welfarestate and economy. The early development of capitalism, the influx of womeninto the labor force in the 1960s and 1970s, and the retrenchment in socialspending in the 1970s and 1930s closely parallel developments in the UnitedStates. Schirmer's devastating critique of the Social Democratic party'sresponse to these developments demonstrates that, however advanced the Danishefforts to mitigate the inequality of capitalism through social welfare andeducational reforms, they rest on the false assumption that equal opportunitycan create real equality. "The economic inequities of the capitalist systemand the very social reforms that were enacted to improve the position ofwomen impede them both as a gender and as members of class groups from attain-ing real equality" (p. 168). Specifically these social reforms attract womeninto a low paying, unstable secondary labor market while maintaining theirposition as flexible, marginal workers by reinforcing their traditionalresponsibilities for home and family. Women's participation in the labormarket, Schirmer asserts, should not be seen as a "willingness" to combinework and family, but as a response to economic and political forces which drawthem into low paying service jobs such as day care, home help for the elderly,and nurses aides (p. 62).Although, formally, equal pay for equal work has been the law in Denmarksince 1976, Schirmer shows that through job reclassification, impediments totraining and, most importantly, manipulation of women's family roles andloyalties, women remain at the bottom of the occupational hierarchy. She alsoexposes the inherent dishonesty of meritocracy when applied to persons unableto attain the basic conditions for competitiveness. Even liberal, well-educa-ted professional women are shown to be handicapped by their heavy burden offamily responsibilities and by employers' preference for hiring and promotingmale workers.The much-admired services of the welfare state such as government-supportedday care and extended paid maternity leave are also shown in practice to limitwomen's choices by their inflexibility and inadequacy and by employers' flagrantdiscrimination against women who are pregnant, mothers, or even of child-bearingage. Catch-22 situations in which unemployed women cannot keep their childrenin day care, yet cannot take a new job without day care (p. 135) show theineptness of the system. "Man in the house" rules which require the sexualisolation of women receiving public assistance (p. 145) show its patriarchalbias.This book was written to alert women to the danger of seeing the Danishwelfare state as "a model for improving women's position" (p. 171) and to theerror in relying on any state which is itself enmeshed in patriarchal andcapitalist imperatives. To the extent that the evidence Schirmer presents ispersuasive, the book succeeds in this mission. The many statistics and quota-tions, however, sometimes are tedious and make no clear point. A judiciousediting of the manuscript would have produced a book which was easier to read,free of annoying stylistic inconsistencies, and which better integrated theorywith fact and fact with conclusion.MARXISM AND DOMINATION: A NEO-HEGELIAN, FEMINIST, PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY OFSEXUAL, POLITICAL, AND TECHNOLOGICAL LIBERATION, by ISAAC D. BALBUS.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982. 471 pp. $40.00 cloth.$9.95 paper.DAN LA BOTZChicagoIsaac Balbus examines the "crisis in Western Marxism" and attempts topoint the way out of it both theoretically and practically in his new bookMarxism and Domination. Criticizing both Marxist and neo-Marxist theories ofthe state, patriarchy, and technology, he finds them flawed and inadequate,and argues instead for a liberation theory "beyond Marxism" based on partici-patory democracy, ecology and feminism, especially on Dorothy Dinnerstein'sanalysis of "mother-monopolized child rearing" as the root cause of theproblems of Western civilization.Balbus rejects both the Marxist model, with its emphasis on production,the political power of the state, and the role of the proletariat as theemancipator of humanity, and the eclectic neo-Marxist models which graftedcontemporary feminist and ecological theories on to Marxism, as "instrumentalmodes of symbolization" which, like capitalism, perpetuate a "death-denying,mother defying unconscious psychic structure" (p. 334) which embodies a "bio-social and cultural imperialism" (p. 278). Balbus argues for an analysis basedon his extensions of the psychological theories of Dinnerstein and NancyChodorow, Hegel's philosophy of the Absolute Idea, Anthony Wilden's dialecticof general systems theory, and the writings of Norman 0. Brown on death, allpermeated with anarchist theory.In a final chapter that draws the political conclusions of this analysis,he argues that even a revolutionary socialist labor movement is not necessar-ily liberating and may well be reactionary, and calls for a feminist-ecologi-cal-participatory-democratic movement. Unfortunately, while Balbus would liketo resolve the crisis of Western Marxism, his book strikes one as only anotherexpression of it, a former Marxist scholar reverting to an anti-humanist,reactionary Romanticism with quasi-religious overtones. His political programraises the dangerous possibility of dividing the labor movement from the femi-nist movement, and of separating both from those who fight for democraticsocialism--in fact, he becomes the advocate of a petty-bourgeois politics of19th century anarchism.Balbus's critique of Marxist philosophy, theories of patriarchy, andtechnology is well informed and interesting and must be taken seriously--eventhough this reviewer finds explanatory and even compelling theories whichBalbus finds inadequate and ultimately misleading. His critique of theMarxist theory of the state is, on the contrary, incomplete and ahistorical,based almost solely on one famous line from the Communist Manifesto. Onewonders why he ignores the historical writings of Marx and Engels, particularlythose on Bonaparte and Bismarck (or why he didn't make use of Hal Draper'salready classic work Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution: Part I State andBureaucracy). It is unfortunate, too, that he chose to mix Marx with (nominally)Marxist fashionable writers like Louis Althusser or Nicos Poulantzas, whileignoring the more important writings on the state of Marxists such as Lenin,Trotsky, or Gramsci.Without going into his critiques of the neo-Marxists, suffice it to saythat he finds them either eclectic or subject to the same critical charges hemakes against Marx. Against both Marxist and neo-Marxist views of the primacyof production and the centrality of the state he argues, in short, that thepremises are either too narrow or are tautological. Balbus finds inherentlyreactionary characteristics in modern industrial technology as such, whichMarxism cannot explain. And he uses familiar contemporary feminist argumentsto criticize Marx's inadequate explanation of patriarchy.The heart of Balbus's critique is his view that Marxism and neo-Marxismare, like capitalism which they criticize, "instrumental modes of symbolization."He argues that a theory and practice based on industry, politics, and workingclass struggle come to use nature, to use women, and to use political power asmeans to an end. Ultimately, people are using people and nature as means notends, and thus would undo the very ends that even the best of them seek toachieve.Such critiques have been made in the past, usually by Kantian Marxistslike the Austrian Max Adler. Balbus's critique, however, derives from Hegel'scriticism of the Enlightenment in the Phenomenology of Mind. Balbus willderive a "post-instrumental mode of symbolization" from Hegel's Absolute Idea(i.e., God), and from a recognition that there are intentions and intelligencesother than human ones. Notwithstanding his denials, the quasi-religiousimplications are unavoidable. So while Hegel can conceive the "purposefulnessor 'freedom' of [a] stone," likewise Balbus can refer to "the homeostaticcapacities of natural ecosystems which can be described as a form of 'intelli-gence' ..... " (pp. 285 and 365).He argues that "Totalitarian or technocratic politics is the corollary ofa totalitarian stance toward nature..." (p. 283), which derives from child-rearing by women: "The domination of nature is the domination of the mother:the symbolization of nature as an absolute, dangerous other which must betamed lest it destroy us is rooted in the unconscious, childhood symbolizationof the mother as an other who must be punished for having betrayed our love"(p. 336). Consequently the answer: "Shared parenting thus establishes the-544-necessary psychological bases for... the post-Instrumental mode of symbolization"(p. 339).The answer is feminism, partly because, "Contemporary women...have anunconscious emotional structure that is, in certain respects, far closer tothat of both primitive women and men than is the structure of contemporarymen" (p. 341). In other places Balbus calls this structure emotional andrelational. All of this is part of a valorization of the primitive andirrational which goes hand in hand with the quasi-religious view of nature andwhich must he repugnant to any humanistic outlook, and certainly to a Marxistsocialist view.His feminism is riddled with problems. How reconcile the fight for con-traception and abortion with nature? How reconcile lesbian rights to raisechildren with a view that "mother-monopolized childrearing" is the origin ofall our problems? How explain Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi, Eva Peron, andMargaret Thatcher if "...support for (almost always male) political despotismcontinues that repudiation of the mother that began with the embrace of thedespotism of the father" (p. 323)?Most important, however, are the political conclusions--the socialmovements against labor. "Women's restaurants [run by participatory democracy]typically offer vegetarian fare that has been 'naturally' prepared, i.e. cookedwithout additives, refined sugar etc." (p. 368). It is the old Proudhonianmutualist cooperative in new feminist garb. A political movement built onsuch a basis will be crushed by the weight of capital unless allied with thelabor movement. However, Balbus argues that, "The proletariat, as Marxistsand neo-Marxists define it, cannot be understood as the or even a revolutionaryagent within contemporary societies..." (p. 353), so the movements should eschewalliances with it. Balbus would condemn the most progressive movements todefeat by taking away their most powerful explanatory theory--Marxism--andtheir potentially best ally--labor.-545-

Book Reviews

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1623&context=jssw

Book Reviews

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU