There is a strange paradox about the current practice of social science. On the one hand, statistical evidence. . . shows that inequalities between social groups have been increasing… At the same time interest in material inequalities as a topic for social scientific analysis has been steadily diminishing, especially those forms of inequality. . . which were formerly explained in terms of relationships of class and capitalism.
(Bradley, 2000: 476)
Clearly, equality is not a preserve of liberal or cultural feminist perspectives. Evans (1995: 109) notes how early socialist feminism had a radical concept of equality in that ‘It demanded capitalism’s overthrow; the expropriation of the property-holders, the abolition of private property, and the concomitant emancipation of the proletariat; a necessary preliminary to the liberation of women.’ Within Marxism gender equality was based on the assumption that capitalism would increasingly draw women into the labour force and this would destroy the sexual division of labour (Hartmann, 1981). Marxist and socialist feminists have demanded rights to economic equality as well as political equality. Central to their position was that ‘political liberalism was hollow without the economic means to realize it’ (Eisenstein, 1984: xv). However, more recently there has been a retreat from the class-based politics that had their origins in Marxism and socialism (Skeggs, 1997). There has also been an associated retreat from a concern about material inequalities. Bradley (2000) notes how statistical evidence highlights growing inequalities between rich and poor families in Britain and
North America and between ‘developed’ and ‘Third World’ nations (see also O’Connell, 1996). She comments that ‘if anything the world is becoming more rather than less unequal’ (2000: 484). Bradley’s analysis of the reasons for the lack of attention given to material inequalities includes the increasing recognition of the complexity of issues that surround social differentiation, such as class, gender, ethnicity, age, dis/ ability and so forth. An appreciation of this complexity has been reinforced by postmodern social theory in terms that it was unlikely that any one single theory, such as Marxism, could account for and explain complex and pluralistic social groupings. Bradley (2000: 480) argues for a conceptualization of material inequality that takes account of what she terms ‘‘‘fractured identities’’ in contemporary social life’ that arise from increasing fragmentation and hybridity. She suggests that there are four sources of fragmentation:
1 Internal fragmentation that occurs within particular classed groupings, for example, the divisions within the working class.
2 External fragmentation that arises because of the impact of variables such as ‘race’ and gender.
3 The impact of social change, for example, young women are able to take advantage of career opportunities that are not available to older women.
4 Increasing individualism as people are more socially and geographically mobile.
Fraser (1995) explores the complexities of post-socialist political life with its decentring of class and the multi-axial, cross-cutting axes of difference through an analysis of the politics of recognition and the politics of redistribution. The politics of recognition is the term Fraser uses for the contemporary predominant focus on identity and cultural expression. This includes attempts to valorize groups in society who are devalued and despised on the basis of, for example, their sexuality, ethnicity, religion or sex. The politics of redistribution is concerned with the need to remain focused on inequalities of material wealth. She comments that ‘Increasingly. . . identity-based claims tend to predominate, as prospects for redistribution appear to recede. The result is a complex political field with little programmatic coherence’ (ibid.: 70). For example, Fraser highlights how redistribution and recognition approaches contradict each other. Thus the aim of programmes such as affirmative action are to write out or obliterate any issues of cultural differentiation. This is the pursuit of sameness. On the other hand, those who argue for a revalidation of aspects of identity, such as Gay Pride or cultural feminists who extol the virtues of motherhood, are emphasizing and make more obvious cultural differentiation.
Fraser sees her task as developing ‘a critical theory of recognition, one which identifies and defends only those versions of the cultural politics of difference than can be coherently combined with the social politics of equality’ (ibid.: 69). This is because of the inter-relationship of material and cultural inequalities. For example, the low value placed on womanhood is reflected in wage levels, career opportunities, educational pathways, sexual exploitation, domestic violence, and so forth. To do this Fraser argues that it is necessary to conceptualize cultural recognition and social equality in ways that support rather than undermine one another. Her analysis indicates that ‘redressing gender injustice requires changing both political economy and culture, so as to undo the vicious circle of economic and cultural subordination’ (ibid.: 88). Fraser argues that the dilemma that arises from the inter-relationship of low cultural valuation and material inequality is both real and cannot be easily resolved. At present the task is to find ways that minimize the conflicts that arise from redistribution and recognition approaches to equality. Here she suggests that a combination of socialism and deconstruction is the most fruitful answer although she notes that this approach is not also without its problems:
For both gender and ‘race’, the scenario that best finesses the redistribution-recognition dilemma is socialism in the economy plus deconstruction in the culture. But for this scenario to be psychologically and politically feasible requires that people be weaned from their attachment to current cultural constructions of their interests and identities. (ibid.: 91)