Patriarchy & Contract: Reading Pateman
| Published date | 01 April 1990 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1990.tb00173.x |
| Date | 01 April 1990 |
| Author | Diana Coole |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Politics
(1990)
lO(1)
pp
25-29
PATRIARCHY
&
CONTRACE
READING
PATEMANl
DmA
COOLE
CONTRACTTHEORY has played
a
special role
in
liberal-democratic societies,
because
it
explains how
free
and equal individuals enter
social
relationships
via voluntary
acts
of exchange.
In
exploring
this
tradition, Carole Pateman
shows
us
how
it
relies upon
a
particular view of the individual
as
a
possessive
individual.
That
is,
individuals
are
defined within contract theory
as
those
who
own
property
in
their persons and capacities.
When
they enter contracts,
what they supposedly exchange
are
therefore these properties
(in
the form of
services such
as
labour
or sex), thereby permitting
an
orderly and legitimate
access
to
others’ services while ostensibly leaving
the
exchangers themselves
as
free men.
‘Men’
is
the significant term
in
this
case, because Pateman advances two
related assertions: first,
that
modern patriarchy takes contractual form; and
second,
that
contract relations are inherently patriarchal. The implications
of these claims
are
broadly twofold.
At
the level
of
political theory, Pateman
discloses a hidden subtext
in
the classic arguments, whereby
the
social
contract
is
simultaneously
a
sexual contract. Additionally,
she
aims
to
demonstrate
to
feminists
that
there
is
no
mileage
in
pursuing emancipation
for women, via the chimera of gender-neutral contractual relations.
Much
of
the argument here
rests
on
Pateman’s analysis
of
the relationship
between women and possessive individualism. Although
I
sometimes found
this
difficult
to
follow,
it
can
perhaps be illustrated rather well by applying
Freud‘s schema of ‘kettle logic’. According
to
Freud,
this
evinces the following:
I
never borrowed
your
kettle.
And
it
was
in
perfect condition when
I
returned
it.
Anyway,
it
was damaged when
I
got
it.
Women have never been treated
as
possessive individuals.
When they
are,
this
is
a
patriarchal trap.
Anyway, the whole concept
is
a
fiction.
Possessiveindividualism
seems
topresent women with similarinconsistencies:
Pateman makes all three claims, and
it
is
these which need consideration.
The
first
claim, that women have been denied the
status
of possessive
individuals,
is
crucial
to
Pateman’s assertion that the social contract
is
also
a
sexual contract.
That
is,
that
it
establishes not only
political
right, but also
sex-right: men’s access
to
women’s bodies. This
part
of
the
argument therefore
relates most directly
to
her
assault
on
classic social contract theories.
According
to
such theories, individuals
in
a
state
of
nature
agree
to
enter
political society
as
a
means
to
satisfying their
interests
in
life,
commodious
living
and property. Although fictional,
this
account serves
as
a
powerful
legitimation for the modern
state.
25
To continue reading
Request your trial