Sexuality: Midterm Paper

“While capitalism has knocked the material foundation away from family life, lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual feminists have become the scapegoats for the social instability of the 1system.” The Role of the “Nuclear Family” & Capitalism in Sexuality and Gender Roles Allison Brown HIST 4990: History of Sexuality Dr. Hampton October 23, 2022 1 John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (New York, 1983) pg. 109 D’Emilio in Capitalism and Gay Identity (1983) writes, “While capitalism has knocked the material foundation away from family life, lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual feminists 2 have become the scapegoats for the social instability of the system.” Throughout the history and development of sexuality and gender roles, capitalism and the construct of a “nuclear family” are fundamental in the economic viability of sexuality and constructions of family. In this essay, I argue capitalism, the nuclear family, and the economic impacts the early history of sexuality in four examples. First, through capital accumulation and inheritance in the patriarchal structure of black slaves in the American South. Secondly, how capitalism’s favoring of single men and those in family units preferably to presenting in female in part created “female husbands”. Thirdly, how when individuals stray from these traditional norms of the nuclear family and the capitalistic state they are perceived as a problem in the economic state. And fourthly, how capitalism led to the political economy in which contraception was developed in the United States in the 1930s, and how the free market developed and marketed family planning. To begin, it is necessary to define capitalism and how it relates to the history of gender and sexuality in the context of this essay’s framework. In this essay I define capitalism as the economic and political system in which private ownership drives the economy rather than state controlled economic output. As the United States functions under capitalism, the role of private property and wage labor influence the ways in which gender and sexuality norms develop. In turn, this development establishes a norm in which society is structured, the nuclear family. On 2 John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (New York, 1983) pg. 109 1 this development, John D’Emilio in Capitalism and Gay Identity (1983) argues, “The expansion of capital and the spread of wage labor have effected a profound transformation in the structure and functions of the nuclear family, the ideology of family life, and the meaning of heterosexual relations. It is these changes in the family that are most directly linked to the appearance of a collective gay life.”3 D’Emilio in this excerpt highlights how capitalism has proven essential in the development of the functions of the nuclear family in the economic structure of the United States. By the mid-1800s, the role of the nuclear family as an economic unit, independent of changes in the state and external pressures, internally began to break down because of capitalism and the widespread availability of wage labor as opposed to dependency on a family unit of production. Thus, as D’Emilio argues, “the family was thus no longer an independent unit of production. But although no longer independent, the family was still interdependent” and as a result of this societal change “capitalism had destroyed the economic self-sufficiency of many 4 families, but not the mutual dependence of the members.” It is with this hindsight of the development of capitalism in the United States and the impact it had in developing the interdependent nature of the nuclear family, although not entirely necessitated by capitalism, that we may look back to earlier centuries and examples of capitalism’s impact to further understand how the intersections between sexuality and the economy developed. In the 17th century and in the United States’ colonial sphere, capitalism strongly influenced how notions of sexuality and gender developed in tandem with economics. Jennifer Spear inColonial Intimacies: Legislating Sex in French Louisiana (2003) argues sexuality is 3 John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (New York, 1983) pg. 102 4 John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (New York, 1983) pgs. 102, 103 2 “influenced by demographic, economic, cultural, imperial circumstances [in which] authorities sought to legislate sex in attempts to further their colonial goals and to control colonial populations.”5 Central to the development of sexuality and gender relations during this period in addition to the control of colonial populations was race and the establishment of marriage. The development of the “Domingue Code Noir” in the French Colonies prohibited slaves from owning property and stated that they had no legal capacity or rights in the state. Additionally, the code also governed their marriages and indicated how the economic objectives of the French 6 Colonies necessitated the division of race in marriage. This is meaningful not only in terms of the capitalistic development in the colonies, but also as Spear argues in“how sexual desire is expressed and toward what object it is directed are not historical characteristics but rather shaped 7 and mediated by human intervention.” Looking to the American South, Jennifer L. Morgan, ‘The Breedings Shall Goe with Their Mothers’: Gender and Evolving Practices of Slave Ownership in the English American Colonies,” in Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery (2004) constructs an argument surrounding the importance of inheritance and race in the state’s construction of marriage. Morgan constructs this argument through historical accounts of wills, and estates, the values in which slave owners and plantations evaluated the economic potential of fostering familial units for economic reproduction. Morgan analyzing the value of black women compared to black men in the Carolina slave inventories writes, “…only the black mother 5 Jennifer Spear, “Colonial Intimacies: Legislating Sex in French Louisiana,” William and Mary Quarterly, 60 no. 1 (January 2003) pg. 76 6 Jennifer Spear, “Colonial Intimacies: Legislating Sex in French Louisiana,” William and Mary Quarterly, 60 no. 1 (January 2003) pg. 97 7 Jennifer Spear, “Colonial Intimacies: Legislating Sex in French Louisiana,” William and Mary Quarterly, 60 no. 1 (January 2003) pg. 79 3 8 embodied both productive and reproductive potential.” Morgan also refers to the work of Brown when analyzing the role in which women “became a means for naturalizing slave status 9 with a concept of race.” As these economic notions of the value of enslaved women compared to enslaved men as potential for economic reproduction in the “mathematics of mastery” evolved, so too did the intersectionalities between race and gender as identities in America were developed with “… key notions of mastery over property were mobilized that defined both 10 whiteness and masculinity.” In this work, Morgan also alludes to the work of Kathleen Brown in, From ‘Foul Crimes’ to ‘Spurious Issue’: Sexual Regulation and the Social Construction of Race,” in Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia (1996). In referring to this work, Morgan develops further how race and the 11 reproductive value of black women “ embodied both productive and reproductive potential” and that women ultimately “became a means for naturalizing slave status with a concept of race.” 12 The role of race in the American South while simultaneously developing with the capitalistic state indicates the interwoven nature of these influences more broadly on the development of sexuality and race in the United States economic structure. 8 Jennifer L. Morgan, “‘The Breedings Shall Goe with Their Mothers’: Gender and Evolving Practices of Slave Ownership in the English American Colonies,” in Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pg. 92 9 Jennifer L. Morgan, “‘The Breedings Shall Goe with Their Mothers’: Gender and Evolving Practices of Slave Ownership in the English American Colonies,” in Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pg. 93 10 Jennifer L. Morgan, “‘The Breedings Shall Goe with Their Mothers’: Gender and Evolving Practices of Slave Ownership in the English American Colonies,” in Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pg. 73 11 Jennifer L. Morgan, “‘The Breedings Shall Goe with Their Mothers’: Gender and Evolving Practices of Slave Ownership in the English American Colonies,” in Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pg. 92 12 Kathleen M. Brown, “From ‘Foul Crimes’ to ‘Spurious Issue’: Sexual Regulation and the Social Construction of Race,” in Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996) pg. 201 4 Another example of the influence of capitalism in race and sexuality is how inheritance was passed down through patriarchal, white, male lines and how this impacted the structure of marriage and how black slaves were passed down through generations as an example of how capitalism constructed inheritance in marriage. This direct monetary value of black slave women and their children was directly translated to wills and inheritance, which in turn only reinforced the economic outputs of the sexuality of slaves. This value was implicit in the constructed relationships facilitated by slave owners for reproduction, as Thomas Jefferson even considered “a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm, what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.” 13 This dynamic of inheritance and economic benefit of ed black women shapes the economic state in the United States with the importance of marriage and legitimacy in children, as lines of inheritance can only pass via official lines. Shifting to examine the second element of this essay’s thesis, these gender dynamics of women’s value for economic reproduction continue to impact gender norms across the United States. Central to these norms continues to be the construction of the nuclear family, which is beginning to shift in importance during the mid-1800s as capitalism redefined wage labor and the structure of the nuclear family in the economic state. Although these nuclear family structures were shifting as free labor allowed economic independence, value still remained in the “traditional” marriage structure in the state. This is exemplified in part by Jan Manion’s arguments inFemale Husbands: A Trans History (2020). Manion argues that “financial security, geographic mobility, and/or gender identity were all motivating factors. Gender, not sexuality, 13Jennifer L. Morgan, “‘The Breedings Shall Goe with Their Mothers’: Gender and Evolving Practices of Slave Ownership in the English American Colonies,” in Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pg. 93 5 14 was the salient category.” Of the reasons in which Manion determines an individual may want to present as a female husband, I believe that financial security is a primary driver. In the example of a female husband, Libdell and their work The of Female Hunter, there is an undeniable connection between their poverty and how in turn that may have led to them being able to exist as a female husband more easily in society, “there was one clear upside to Libdell’s slide into poverty amid the scrutiny of family, neighbors, and even the national press: the love 15 and companionship of a woman.” By being of a lower class or as Manion writes “in poverty” Libdell was able for some time to avoid the scrutiny an individual may have faced if in a higher class or area of a society. This is indicative of class issues at the time and the freedom in some ways of the lower classes of a society prior to more strict regulations and laws regarding gender expression and sexual orientation. In terms of social mobility, these individuals were bound by their class, but by identifying as males even in a lower class of society, they were able to more freely work and have gender, not sexuality, be the determining factor. Capitalism necessitated, in part, women during this period to present as men for the social and economic mobility which was severely restricted otherwise. Unpacking these histories of trans individuals through the eighteenth and nineteenth century reveals just how ingrained capitalism had become into sexuality and gender dynamics prior to the perceived breakdown of the nuclear family with wage labor becoming even more popular following this period. Throughout these accounts thus far, we’ve seen individuals shifting away from the traditional nuclear family structure seemingly necessitated by capitalism and how these individuals are penalized by this or how it seemingly disrupts the productivity of the economic 14 Jan Manion, Female Husbands: A Trans History (Cambridge University Press, 2020) pg. 260 15 Jan Manion, Female Husbands: A Trans History (Cambridge University Press, 2020) pg. 218 6 state. Returning to the work of D’Emilio, he argues “Ideologically, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families: each generation comes of age having internalized a heterosexist model of intimacy and personal relationships. Materially, capitalism weakens the bonds the once kept families together … Thus, while capitalism has knocked the material foundation away from family life, lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual feminists have become the scapegoats for the 16 social instability of the system.” However, regardless of D’Emilio’s accurate argument, individuals who stray from the traditional family structures which uphold capitalism are perceived or “scapegoated” as the problem and why the state is shifting away from these “traditional” values. To conclude this essay, I will analyze the impacts of this perception of these changes from a society which emphasizes the nuclear family and how these changes in the society of the United States impacts capitalism. In the early 1900s, the economic impacts of the Great Depression and the lead up to World War I drastically changed the connections between capitalism and sexuality. At the center of these changes was the shifting roles which white, cisgender, men occupied in society. Dorthy Roberts in“The Dark Side of Birth Control,” in Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (1997) examines the impacts of the Great Depression on capitalism and manhood in the United States. Roberts alludes to the disconnect between government regulation and the actual needs of women in a community in terms of reproductive health, especially in communities of color or lower socioeconomic standing and how this in turn impacts 17 the economic output of the state. Additionally, during this time with the perceived breakdown 16 John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (New York, 1983) pg. 109 17 Dorothy Roberts, “The Dark Side of Birth Control,” in Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (New York: Pantheon Books, 1997) pg. 79 7 of masculinity in the US via capitalism, there is increased persecution of women who are seen as wealthy or of constructing their own means of economic production outside the norms of a nuclear family. This is especially evident in Jessica Pliley’s Vice‘ Queens and White Slaves’: The FBI’s Crackdown on Elite Brothel Madams in 1930s New York City(2016). In this work, Pliley details how the FBI under the director of Director Hoover, had a vested interest in breaking up prostitution businesses in the 1930s. Under the guise of breaking up “white slavery” and the protection of women from these business, the FBI oversaw raids on different brothels that Pliley argues is in part due to the women leading these businesses countering traditional gender roles at the time. In an example Pliley highlights, of “America’s only millionaire madam”, Mae Scheible. Throughout Scheible’s investigation from the FBI, “the prosecution’s case presented Scheible as an example of deviant womanhood; she was motivated not by feminine traits of love, nurturing, and caring but by masculine traits like ambition, greed, and lust … she was trespassing on 18 boundaries of class and respectability through various strategies of dishonestly and duplicity.” Scheible was monitored by the FBI and eventually persecuted by the Department of the Treasury because of her economic outputs, she was not tried on her role in facilitating prostitution, but her tax evasion and accumulation of capital. Perhaps, her accumulation of capital that was accumulated by her blatant disregard for gender roles and her disruption of the nuclear family through prostitution. In addition to these typical dichotomies being disrupted by the age of “new women” or by capitalism itself as D’Emilio argues, political economics developed surrounding women’s reproductive health or family planning. During this time, in the long shadow of the Comstock 18 Jessica Pliley, “Vice Queens and White Slaves: The FBI’s Crackdown on Elite Brothel Madams in 1930s New York City,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 25 no. 1 (January 2016) pg. 156 8 Act of 1873, all contraception and information about it was technically illegal, leading to misinformation and at times a lack of safety with birth control methods in the twentieth century. Using women’s fears of pregnancy to create higher profit margins, birth control companies 19 continued to sell at high rates in modern society as an option for women. However, as the Comstock Act still forced the development and sale of these ‘feminine hygiene’ products underground, “impeded the development of informed consumerism” and at times led to unsafe practices.20 To blame for unsafe practices or ineffective methods of birth control was the federal government, as neither the FDA nor the FTC was able to regulate the market, again leading to unsafe situations at times. A lack of government regulation in the commercialization of birth control in the 1930s allowed birth control manufacturers to lead the development and use of contraception. By allowing these companies to steer the market, the US government also allowed them to set the standards for contraception and lead prevention measures in broader society, which would have impacts in how the government interacts with these companies in the future and how the opinions and endorsements of organizations and medical professionals shaped commercial contraceptives. Because the United States’ government under the Comstock Law outlawed the development of birth control, under capitalism, the free market was able to develop best practices and methods for family planning, but at a cost to women who were either harmed by these means or purchased ineffective methods. An argument could be constructed however that because the United States did not regulate the free market around birth control or subsidize research through the state, the effective methods were able to develop. In this way, it could be 19 Andrea Tone, “Contraceptive Consumers: Gender and the Political Economy of Birth Control in the 1930s,” Journal of Social History 29 no. 3 (Spring 1996) pg. 487 20Andrea Tone, “Contraceptive Consumers: Gender and the Political Economy of Birth Control in the 1930s,” Journal of Social History 29 no. 3 (Spring 1996) pg. 493 9 argued that capitalism actually benefited in the development of birth control and had lasting impacts on the effectiveness of family planning. In conclusion, throughout this essay I have argued how the construct of the “nuclear family” and capitalism have shaped the development of sexuality and gender roles, specifically through state forms of normality through the economic structure of capitalism. This history of capitalism and sexuality with the development of gender norms in the nuclear family shapes how society’s structure best serves certain groups continuing through the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century as capitalism and the nuclear family continues to shape today’s society. 10