[page 11]
Although the literature on women's liberation has been growing none of the recently published books provides a socialist analysis of the oppression of women and the means to liberation. Juliet Mitchell's book does not fill this gap. Woman's Estate provides some explanation and description of the women's movement in Britain and elsewhere, outlines a framework for analysing women's oppression and discusses how the movement is developing; in the process it reflects some of the confusions and uncertainties which are to be found in the movement to-day.
Mitchell considers both radical feminism and socialism as the basis for analysis and strategy: but in trying to look in these two directions she succeeds in focusing nowhere. Radical feminism is criticised for its inability to develop from a recognition that women have been oppressed in many forms of society to an understanding of the particular forms of oppression in capitalist society to-day, and the failure of Shulamith Firestone's(1) attempt to show that sexual inequality is at the source of all social inequality is examined. On the other hand socialist theory is criticised for giving too little and inadequate attention to the oppression of women; a comprehensive theory has still to be developed. Besides this the practice of most left wing and revolutionary groupings reflects the subordination of women in the wider society.
To this point there is little to disagree with in what Mitchell has to say; the differences arise as the argument develops.
The theoretical framework which Mitchell uses is a reworking of her article Women the Longest Revolution, (2) but the additions and amendments weaken the perspective of the earlier article. There are tour elements which combine to define women's position at any time: these are production, reproduction, sexuality and the socialization of children, "In a complex totality each independent sector has its own autonomous reality, though each is ultimately determined. but only ultimately, by the economic factor. Because the unity of women's condition is in this way the product of several structures, moving at different paces, it is always overdetermined." (p.101). By emphasising these four structures Mitchell enables us to go beyond the family as an abstract idea and to examine the significance of the particular forms of the family which have existed at diffe. rent historical periods. But she seems unable to develop such an analysis herself; there is a lack of understanding of the inter-relationships between these four structures, and of the way in which they rest ultimately on the economic structure. Instead the "autonomous reality" of each is outlined, the idea of "over-determination" (3) doesn't seem to mean very much more than adding them together to find the situation of women now. Thus Mitchell uses Marxist ideas and terminology but fails to produce a Marxist analysis. Why? Because her idea of how a socialist theory of women's oppression must be developed-"We must ask the feminist questions but try to come up with some Marxist answers."(p.99).- inevitably leads her away from Marxism. S.BRANNANESONS LTD STO