11 ms·

Wouldn't it be nice if history were actually this simple? The idea here is that Romans, with their pater familias, or the Confucian Chinese, for whom the fathe

by ertian 6y ago

Wouldn't it be nice if history were actually this simple? The idea here is that Romans, with their pater familias, or the Confucian Chinese, for whom the father was a mini-emperor, were just preparing the way for capitalism, 2000+ years before the fact? Marriage and home-bound women were not an invention of the late medival world. Women may well have been more free in the preceding period, but that was the exception, not the norm.

claudeganon 6y ago
This isn’t a refutation of Federici’s argument. Her’s is specifically that the conditions of European feudalism created an emergent communalism that was then subjugated through witch trials and their mythology in service to the new, Capitalist ordering. She doesn’t argue that gendered forms of subjugation have no prior context in history. And whether or not the changes in women’s social/economic conditions were “temporary” depends on a rationalization of the violence that was used to reorder society and a fallacious appeal to nature that makes little sense in terms of how Capitalism otherwise radically transformed societies.
- twsttest 6y ago
  The witch hunt as a means of enforcing female subservience in the context of an emergent capitalism is a just-so story that is driven more by a desire to demonize capitalism than anything else. Gender roles have remained pretty static throughout European history so it doesn't make sense to pin down witch paranoia on a changing of gender roles or attitudes that never changed in the first place. The better explanation is the one offered by the OP, that a pre-existing desire by religious authorities to root out heresy found fertile ground in the fervor of the reformation era. The result was witch hysteria.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    In my reading of history, hysteria is often driven by plagues or famines. Look at the Mayan culture of human sacrifice. It's very similar to witch hunting. I think when a formerly thriving society is struck by a series of disasters that threaten the social order, false enemies get created as scapegoats. Either it's an angry god or a witch's curse.
  - pasabagi 6y ago
    >Gender roles have remained pretty static throughout European history I've generally heard the inverse statement. Compare the women in Chaucer to the women in Shakespeare, and you'll immediately notice a huge difference in behaviour. Usually, people say that women's rights took a precipitous dive in the 1600s, with the invention of things like brutal punishments for 'nagging', and so on. Which would fit with the idea it was related to primitive accumulation. I don't really agree with the grandparent thesis, but I think the chronology is correct.
- occamrazor 6y ago
  Witch trials were virtually non existent in post-reformation Catholic countries (e.h. Spain, Italy and France). I have never seen any source indicating that women were more free in these countries.
  - adamjb 6y ago
    This kinda fits in quite nicely with Federici's theory, seeing as capitalism emerged in Protestant north-west Europe.
    - jevgeni 6y ago
      It’s seems a rather peculiar definition of capitalism, if it emerged so late.
      - adamjb 6y ago
        I'm using the standard definition of capitalism. E.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica dates "early capitalists" to 1500–1750. https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
        Retric 6y ago
        Agricultural Capitalism is listed as starting in 1350 by Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism But, it’s hard to pin down a date because individual ownership of the means of production is arguably the default state.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        >individual ownership of the means of production is arguably the default state. // Could you flesh out that argument because I'd imagine that co-operative ownership was essential to the rise of civilisation.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  I'm sympathetic to the foundation of the argument, about enclosure as the means by which capitalism became capitalism (and classical liberalism's invention of inherent property rights as the means by which this was justified.) But for reasons others give here I think this is a rather weak analysis to explain the rise of the modern patriarchal family form. And in reality in working class homes women continued to work outside the home anyways, in factories and the like. The ideological foundation for patriarchy runs much deeper, pre-capitalist, pre-feudal, and goes back to pre-Roman times, but in the context of later Europe it was accentuated by the early Christian church, which was positively _obsessed_ with issues like abortion, pre-marital sex, and women with any kind of power.

by ertian 6y ago

claudeganon 6y ago

This isn’t a refutation of Federici’s argument. Her’s is specifically that the conditions of European feudalism created an emergent communalism that was then subjugated through witch trials and their mythology in service to the new, Capitalist ordering. She doesn’t argue that gendered forms of subjugation have no prior context in history. And whether or not the changes in women’s social/economic conditions were “temporary” depends on a rationalization of the violence that was used to reorder society and a fallacious appeal to nature that makes little sense in terms of how Capitalism otherwise radically transformed societies.

twsttest 6y ago
The witch hunt as a means of enforcing female subservience in the context of an emergent capitalism is a just-so story that is driven more by a desire to demonize capitalism than anything else. Gender roles have remained pretty static throughout European history so it doesn't make sense to pin down witch paranoia on a changing of gender roles or attitudes that never changed in the first place. The better explanation is the one offered by the OP, that a pre-existing desire by religious authorities to root out heresy found fertile ground in the fervor of the reformation era. The result was witch hysteria.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  In my reading of history, hysteria is often driven by plagues or famines. Look at the Mayan culture of human sacrifice. It's very similar to witch hunting. I think when a formerly thriving society is struck by a series of disasters that threaten the social order, false enemies get created as scapegoats. Either it's an angry god or a witch's curse.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  >Gender roles have remained pretty static throughout European history I've generally heard the inverse statement. Compare the women in Chaucer to the women in Shakespeare, and you'll immediately notice a huge difference in behaviour. Usually, people say that women's rights took a precipitous dive in the 1600s, with the invention of things like brutal punishments for 'nagging', and so on. Which would fit with the idea it was related to primitive accumulation. I don't really agree with the grandparent thesis, but I think the chronology is correct.
occamrazor 6y ago
Witch trials were virtually non existent in post-reformation Catholic countries (e.h. Spain, Italy and France). I have never seen any source indicating that women were more free in these countries.
- adamjb 6y ago
  This kinda fits in quite nicely with Federici's theory, seeing as capitalism emerged in Protestant north-west Europe.
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    It’s seems a rather peculiar definition of capitalism, if it emerged so late.
    - adamjb 6y ago
      I'm using the standard definition of capitalism. E.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica dates "early capitalists" to 1500–1750. https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
      - Retric 6y ago
        Agricultural Capitalism is listed as starting in 1350 by Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism But, it’s hard to pin down a date because individual ownership of the means of production is arguably the default state.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        >individual ownership of the means of production is arguably the default state. // Could you flesh out that argument because I'd imagine that co-operative ownership was essential to the rise of civilisation.
cmrdporcupine 6y ago
I'm sympathetic to the foundation of the argument, about enclosure as the means by which capitalism became capitalism (and classical liberalism's invention of inherent property rights as the means by which this was justified.) But for reasons others give here I think this is a rather weak analysis to explain the rise of the modern patriarchal family form. And in reality in working class homes women continued to work outside the home anyways, in factories and the like. The ideological foundation for patriarchy runs much deeper, pre-capitalist, pre-feudal, and goes back to pre-Roman times, but in the context of later Europe it was accentuated by the early Christian church, which was positively _obsessed_ with issues like abortion, pre-marital sex, and women with any kind of power.