Scan barcode
A review by _moth
The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution by Shulamith Firestone
2.0
The Dialectic of Sex is a well-articulated book but she definitely also makes some iffy (to say the least) points at times.
To start with the positives, her application of Marxist analysis to feminism as well as feminist critique of contemporary socialist movements are spot on (and the latter is absolutely still applicable in 2018, anyone who is or has ever been in a socialist group/organization/party will likely find themselves nodding along to what she's saying about marginalization of feminist goals as well as female comrades who sideline feminism in favor of 'more inclusive' sex-blind class analysis).
Her chapter on childhood was also thought-provoking and definitely accomplished the goal of making me/the reader reconsider the current perspective on childhood. There were points that I would've contested from a psych perspective, but she makes a convincing case overall and her review of the history of childhood is undeniably valuable. Essentially - Her analysis of unequal power relations within the nuclear family and how this harms children - good; Her critique of the school system - good; Her historical analysis which demonstrates that children have much higher capacities than we assume they do, and that they thrive by being more included in adult activities - great. H o w e v e r, she later goes back to build onto these points to ultimately condone pedophilia, and ?????? No.
She also has a whole chapter on Freudianism, and I appreciated her argument about why Freudian ideas became so popular when they did (both feminism and Freudianism emerged at a similar time with similar aims - analysis of sexuality - and Freudianism ended up being accepted as the lesser of the two evils - "If we /have/ to deal with sexuality, might as well take this patriarchal perspective in order to bury the perspective challenging male violence") but Firestone didn't really buy me with the whole attempt to somehow salvage Freudianism by running it through a feminist lens. If it was done simply to explain Freudian problems through feminist analysis - and then discard it, I would've been excited about it. I wasn't too impressed with her assimilationist approach, though. Reactionary ideas are reactionary ideas regardless of their packaging.
It gets more bizarre in her chapter on racism, which she also writes through a psychoanalyst lens and honestly it's extremely awkward to read due to, well, the woke racism of it all.
To start with the positives, her application of Marxist analysis to feminism as well as feminist critique of contemporary socialist movements are spot on (and the latter is absolutely still applicable in 2018, anyone who is or has ever been in a socialist group/organization/party will likely find themselves nodding along to what she's saying about marginalization of feminist goals as well as female comrades who sideline feminism in favor of 'more inclusive' sex-blind class analysis).
Her chapter on childhood was also thought-provoking and definitely accomplished the goal of making me/the reader reconsider the current perspective on childhood. There were points that I would've contested from a psych perspective, but she makes a convincing case overall and her review of the history of childhood is undeniably valuable. Essentially - Her analysis of unequal power relations within the nuclear family and how this harms children - good; Her critique of the school system - good; Her historical analysis which demonstrates that children have much higher capacities than we assume they do, and that they thrive by being more included in adult activities - great. H o w e v e r, she later goes back to build onto these points to ultimately condone pedophilia, and ?????? No.
She also has a whole chapter on Freudianism, and I appreciated her argument about why Freudian ideas became so popular when they did (both feminism and Freudianism emerged at a similar time with similar aims - analysis of sexuality - and Freudianism ended up being accepted as the lesser of the two evils - "If we /have/ to deal with sexuality, might as well take this patriarchal perspective in order to bury the perspective challenging male violence") but Firestone didn't really buy me with the whole attempt to somehow salvage Freudianism by running it through a feminist lens. If it was done simply to explain Freudian problems through feminist analysis - and then discard it, I would've been excited about it. I wasn't too impressed with her assimilationist approach, though. Reactionary ideas are reactionary ideas regardless of their packaging.
It gets more bizarre in her chapter on racism, which she also writes through a psychoanalyst lens and honestly it's extremely awkward to read due to, well, the woke racism of it all.