The more serious problem with Delphy’s class analysis is that she makes no mention of the need to hail women into their It is as if specifying the structures “class.” and dynamics of patriarchy is enough to constitute a unified movement of women. More generously, we could read the as class” argument not just literally (as a “women statement about how patriarchy actually positions but as itself a hail. This ‘women’) would pose its own problem, however, as the language of has not worked “class” especially well to hail women into a political movement. In fact, Delphy’s least favorite—the language of been more efficacious in that regard. “difference”—has Put differently, the power of Delphy’s work is her prizing apart the social from the natural. She falls short in theorizing the relationship between the social and the political. Whereas she fully recognizes the autonomy of society from nature, she does not come to grips with the autonomy of politics from the social. Patriarchy is a focus of her analysis because she seems to expect patriarchal oppression to give rise to democratic politics. In this context, has become a short cut: it is not a natural grouping but it “class” should give rise readily (if not entirely spontaneously) to a political grouping.
The more serious problem with Delphy’s class analysis is that she makes no mention of the need to hail women into their “class.” It is as if specifying the structures and dynamics of patriarchy is enough to constitute a unified movement of women. More generously, we could read the “women as class” argument not just literally (as a statement about how patriarchy actually positions ‘women’) but as itself a hail. This would pose its own problem, however, as the language of “class” has not worked especially well to hail women into a political movement. In fact, Delphy’s least favorite—the language of “difference”—has been more efficacious in that regard. Put differently, the power of Delphy’s work is her prizing apart the social from the natural. She falls short in theorizing the relationship between the social and the political. Whereas she fully recognizes the autonomy of society from nature, she does not come to grips with the autonomy of politics from the social. Patriarchy is a focus of her analysis because she seems to expect patriarchal oppression to give rise to democratic politics. In this context, “class” has become a short cut: it is not a natural grouping but it should give rise readily (if not entirely spontaneously) to a political grouping.
disch2013.docx