Motivation

I think that she might. Selma James argues that “our identity, our social roles, the way we are seen, appears to be disconnected from our capitalist functions, . . . identity caste is the very substance of class” (Sex, Race, and Class). Identity castes, for James, impose divisions of labor that are neither necessary nor natural. “Racism and sexism train us to develop and acquire certain capabilities at the expense of all others. Then these acquired capabilities are taken to be our nature and fix our functions for life, and fix also the quality of our mutual relations. So planting cane is not a job for white people and changing nappies is not a job for men and beating children is not violence. . . . The work you do and the wages you receive are not merely ‘economic’ but social determinants, determinants of social power” Id. MacKinnon claims that James’s theory sees women as “exploited because they do work–housework” (525). But that doesn’t seem to really be what James is saying. Women, says James, end up doing housework because capitalism makes housework a job for women–and it does so because of their identity-caste. This isn’t exactly treating race and sex as a lesser included problem with capitalism. For James, identity castes and the capitalist division of labor are mutually reinforcing. It isn’t true, then, that “sexuality is the linchpin of gender inequality” (MacKinnon at 533), but rather that sexuality is an important part of a constellation of forces that divide up what people do into different tasks. If we don’t think about the role that sexuality plays, then we won’t be able to address the problems of oppression, which is part of why the tactics of trade unionists and the white male left in the 20th century often left sexism intact.