The ideology of gender is not Marxist
Nildo Viana
Reading the latest issue of the Journal Option, I came across the priest's text Luiz Carlos Lodi regarding the gender ideology. The author aims to question this ideology and makes a number of statements that would like to comment.
The first point I would highlight is the claim that such an ideology has "Marxist origin." I will have, due to reasons of space, to be very brief about the origins of this ideology. For further insight into just consult my article "Gender and Ideology" in the collection The Women's Issues (Rio de Janeiro, Modern Science, 2006). Marxism exerted a strong influence on feminism of the 60s, but loses such influence over the next decade. From the 70 post-structuralism arises (better known as "postmodernism") that passes, gradually gaining ground and become hegemonic, presenting itself as the overcoming of Marxism - the new big opponent of this theory which replaces former adversaries defeated by Marxism after the social struggles of the late '60s, structuralism, which was functionalism substitute.
The new feminism reference hegemonic speaking, becomes the post-structuralism, and the emergence of gender ideology is precisely in the 70s and is strengthened in the 80s, when the post-structuralism wins global force. The ideology of gender thus born in opposition to Marxism, particularly to replace the question of social classes by gender issues, replacing a social theory by a culturalist ideology.
To say that the origin of gender ideology is Marxist, or say that it is a Marxist character, is a misnomer, as the fundamental principle of Marxism, class struggle, is replaced by a fanciful "struggle of genres." Another radical difference between gender ideology and Marxism is epistemological, because for Marxism, the entire category is fundamental and one can only understand a social phenomenon in the set of social relationships, while the gender ideology, following the fashion poststructuralist, abandons the vision of totality, empowering and essentializing the "gender relations". The issue of women in the Marxist approach, is involved in the set of social relations and can not leave the issue of corporeality to analyze the relationships between the sexes.
The existence of some similarities between this design and Marxism does not make it a Marxist conception. This is not a commendable method or effective to understand the historical development (or cultural) of humanity, for the same procedure could be used and see similarities between Nazism and Christianity, or between fascism and contemporary feminism, and assert that Nazism has Christian origin and contemporary feminism has fascist origin, which only very irresponsible and decontextualisation could be stated. Undoubtedly, one can find some similarities between the gender ideology and Marxism, and note that there are some feminists who seek to join the two conceptions. However, if a notebook has leaves and a tree as well, this does not cause the tree to be a notebook or vice versa, even because they are "different" sheets.
On practical proposals derived from gender ideology, we note that they derive the culturalism that is at its base. On the one hand we have the conception of the question of the woman who is "naturalizing", biologist, which is typical of conservative view, on the other hand we have the gender ideology, where everything turns into "cultural construction". This ideology, as in more extreme view of Judith Butler, it generates a reversal of the traditional view and reaches the absurd to say that heterosexuality is compulsory and that sex (embodiment) is constructed by gender. Now the view that gender roles are socially constituted was produced by sociology and anthropology, as well as the critique of biological determinism on the issue of relations between the sexes was effected pioneered by Simone de Beauvoir in the 40 Not to mention the Marxism and various currents of psychoanalysis.
Accept and naturalize "the woman's place is at home" is not only a great conservatism but also a pre-scientific position and pre-Marxist. Extreme (and error) that is opposite unlink "gender" and sex means nothing more than abolish a part of concrete reality to defend their interests, or to stay "fashionable", which is a form of interest, since linking with the fad allows "competitive academic advantage."
So we must question not only the post-structuralist theories, as the revived conservatism (and manifesting in various forms, including in the form of religious fundamentalism) in contemporary society.
NILDO VIANA is professor of UEG and a doctorate in sociology from UNB.
