Anne Phillips, Hidden Hands, Pluto, £2.95
Anne Phillips has written a useful contribution to the debate over incorporating strategies fully integrating feminist demands — a debate which has raged since 1978 when Bea Campbell and Valerie Charlton published their controversial paper 'Work to Rule'. These arguments were later reprinted in Sweet Freedom, and except for one article by Melanie and Angela Weir there has been no systematic reply to Bea Campbell's arguments, from within the women's movement.
Bea Campbell's arguments, we are told, make up three essential points. First, that collective bargaining is a practice which benefits only male trade unionists, and that trade union strategy for women at work must never [illegible] many of the things which have resulted [illegible] such as differentials, long hours and the like. Secondly, Campbell argues that the history of the trade unions proves them to be male institutions, and that women should look elsewhere for allies in their fight. She concludes that women's new allies lie with the state, and in particular with the action of incomes policies which she maintains have in the past and will in the future get to distribute wealth between workers on a more even basis (through flat rate increases, protection of the lower paid, etc).
Phillips argues cogently against this, pointing out that 'we cannot trust the state' to redistribute in favour of women. She states that only under a different system of social ownership can planning of incomes really work to women's and men's advantage. In the present context incomes policies merely mean that wealth is taken from labour to give to Capital rather than ironing out inequalities between workers. She ends by arguing that trade unions must be changed from within. The basis of a programme for women in the workforce is spelled out in demands for shorter working hours, a minimum wage, closing of differentials, and so on. These are general demands which must be put forward in their feminist context because, as an earlier paper from the Sex and Class Group pointed out 'women's relation to wage labour is differently structured from that of men.'
However, it is precisely when the [author] elaborates this framework that some of the ambiguities and pitfalls become apparent. Phillips strongly argues that the Alternative Economic Strategy (AES) is inadequate from a women's point of view: that it is based on recapturing a boom in the economy which is unlikely to reappear; that when issues such as full employment and industrial democracy are raised it is therefore never spelt out [the] role women will have to play. She declares, 'why should anyone support a strategy that threatens conflict with Capital unless it [offers] something new?' In other words such a programme is not bold enough to mobilise either female or male workers in its support and will therefore be crushed by Capital.
The concept of industrial democracy put forward within the AES has many problems apart from the lack of reference to women. It talks about persuading employers to be involved in central planning on the naive assumption that they will fully cooperate. It does not talk about control of the economy, seeing even a minimal amount of nationalisation as 'old fashioned'. In these circumstances trade unionists, women and men, become more pawns and democracy would be a sham.
Anne Phillips seems to see the main problem as one of male bias, rather than the utopianism of the whole schema. She does not clearly resolve her attitude towards the AES, should feminists reject it or should they try to change it? This question is never answered.
The book puts forward the notion of shared labour as the major plank of any future strategy. This is counterposed directly to the issue of socialisation of the different tasks which men and women perform. She states that Marx and Engels saw capitalism 'as liberating for women' because it got them involved in socialised production. This is not what Marx and Engels said at all. They merely stated that for women, as for the proletariat as a whole, the best chances of organising collectively against class society and male domination was under capitalism. It is undeniably true that where women are more involved in the workforce they have found it easier to organise. This does not mean, of course, that women will not and should not organise in many other ways as well.
Anne Phillips then expresses reservations about the socialisation of domestic labour too, on the grounds that it is some crude extension of the former error made by Marx and Engels, and is a solution which 'demands say nothing of men'. It is true that collectivising the domestic functions of childcare, cooking and cleaning does not in and of itself challenge the division of labour between men and women, but the point is should such a framework inform our demands or not? It makes a difference to which demands we prioritise and how we fight for them. Again the book fails to answer and concentrates instead on getting more men involved in sharing tasks with women as the main solution.
This new strategy is based on the call for the shorter working week. The book argues that this would give more time for men to be involved with children, housework, and so on. This may well be so but of course there's no reason to assure that the extra time will be used by men to share housework. The shorter working week is primarily a demand to fight unemployment in women's and men's interests. This is not to say that women cannot use it to their advantage in other ways but can this demand really be used as the starting point in tackling the issue of domestic labour?
This demand also raises the vexed question of productivity deals and wage cuts in return for shorter hours. Anne Phillips argues that it is not in women's interests that shorter hours be traded off against harder work. However later on she contradicts herself when she says that in order to reduce the hours 'productivity must usually go up' and at a certain point there would have to be a trade off between hours and income'. A [illegible] strategy to reduce work and unemployment will hardly benefit women. However, she persists that men have privileges which they must give up if women are to get equality. Are these the kind of privileges she's talking about — decent wages and jobs with decent conditions?
In fact the problem with her proposals is that while many are acceptable individually — more time off for parents, more flexible hours as well as shorter working hours — the whole framework is still based on the notion of redistribution within the working class in a similar way to Bea Campbell's arguments. On the issue of differentials and overtime for example, Anne Phillips still talks of the need to 'take from men in order to give to women'. Weir and McIntosh answer this point well when they state, 'there is no automatic mechanism by which wage rises for miners or printers must come out of the pockets of clerical workers or cleaners...'
The confusion here is further exaggerated when the question of how and in what context these demands will be granted. Anne Phillips states that, 'crisis always has two faces. It threatens what we used to take for granted... At the same time it is a preface to revival, when Capital lays the groundwork for its next phase of expansion'. In other words the demands are premised on some form of economic recovery within capitalism. Here the book comes full circle with the debate on the AES. Even the pundits of the Financial Times and the City are now beginning to doubt the extent of the so-called economic recovery. If they have so little faith in their own 'system', should women build their perspective on the basis of such a prospect? As socialists and feminists we want practical demands around which we can organise now and win certain gains, but these must be linked to the fight for a different society where our needs can be fully met. A difficult task and this book does not completely make the link.
JUDITH ARKWRIGHT is a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.