110 – Introductions
about its adequacy as a theoretical term began to be raised. Lisa Tuttle
in The Encyclopedia of Feminism (1987: 243) states that ‘not all
feminists find the term “patriarchy” useful; some alternatives which have
been used for the same basic concept include “sex–gender system”
(Gayle Rubin), the “Planetary Men’s Association” (Mary Daly), [and
others] “phallocracy” or simply “sexism” ’. Joan Acker (1989: 236)
argued that ‘patriarchy could not be turned into a generally useful
analytic concept’. These views rapidly became the norm.
More recently, however, there has been a trend back towards
the use of patriarchy, led by Marxist feminists and by Sylvia Walby. This
trend examines the concept not as an isolated theoretical term that tries
to explain everything, which is what had happened in the past, but as
part of a constellation of issues that include gender, class, work and
sexuality. It is only by teasing out the complex inter-relationships
between these things that the concept of patriarchy can be made useful
and understandable, not just to theorists of feminism but to society as a
whole.
This I shall do by analysing these relationships not as a purely
theoretical exercise but by examining them in the work of just one group
of feminists, namely feminist historians. The advantage of such an
approach is that it is in the concrete application of the concepts of
patriarchy, gender, class, work and sexuality in actual historical
situations that the nature of these relationships can be clarified and the
position of patriarchy established. The scope of this paper confines me
to a very limited number of such historical situations, which can only be
illustrative. But, as Beechy (1979: 79) pointed out long ago, it is only by
tracing the development of patriarchy within its historical context that we
can deconstruct its nature and demonstrate its continued usefulness to
feminist studies.
about its adequacy as a theoretical term began to be raised. Lisa Tuttle
in The Encyclopedia of Feminism (1987: 243) states that ‘not all
feminists find the term “patriarchy” useful; some alternatives which have
been used for the same basic concept include “sex–gender system”
(Gayle Rubin), the “Planetary Men’s Association” (Mary Daly), [and
others] “phallocracy” or simply “sexism” ’. Joan Acker (1989: 236)
argued that ‘patriarchy could not be turned into a generally useful
analytic concept’. These views rapidly became the norm.
More recently, however, there has been a trend back towards
the use of patriarchy, led by Marxist feminists and by Sylvia Walby. This
trend examines the concept not as an isolated theoretical term that tries
to explain everything, which is what had happened in the past, but as
part of a constellation of issues that include gender, class, work and
sexuality. It is only by teasing out the complex inter-relationships
between these things that the concept of patriarchy can be made useful
and understandable, not just to theorists of feminism but to society as a
whole.
This I shall do by analysing these relationships not as a purely
theoretical exercise but by examining them in the work of just one group
of feminists, namely feminist historians. The advantage of such an
approach is that it is in the concrete application of the concepts of
patriarchy, gender, class, work and sexuality in actual historical
situations that the nature of these relationships can be clarified and the
position of patriarchy established. The scope of this paper confines me
to a very limited number of such historical situations, which can only be
illustrative. But, as Beechy (1979: 79) pointed out long ago, it is only by
tracing the development of patriarchy within its historical context that we
can deconstruct its nature and demonstrate its continued usefulness to
feminist studies.