Abstract
The publicity on the back cover of this text notes that: ‘few thinkers have attempted to reconcile queer and Marxist analysis’; this statement, though brief, is an indication of the ambitious project which Holly Lewis undertakes. Since Queer and Marxist approaches are, for the most part, deemed to be located within the two distinct and often competing philosophical frames of structuralism and post-structuralism, I was intrigued to see how the author might achieve her aim of drawing Marxist theorists, feminist theorists, Marxist practitioners and queer and trans-feminist activists into the dialogue she develops.
Within the introduction Lewis poses two overarching questions which she then sets out to address, namely: How does the Marxist paradigm reconcile its understanding of inclusivity together with gender and sexual alterity? And, what are the material conditions that shape the politics of sex and gender and how do they relate to capitalism and anti-capitalism? Four substantive sections are then used to unpack and explicate the discussion: the terms of the debate, Marxism and gender, queer nationalism and queer Marxism, and conclusions. It is, to a large extent, in this final section where Lewis’s political project becomes clearer as the preceding discussion is drawn together to inform a ten-point proposal for achieving a queer Marxist future.
In the first section Lewis endeavours to provide an overview of core concepts such as identity politics, systems and systematic injustice and situated vs objective knowledge from the perspectives of Marxism, feminism and queer theory. Whilst this is helpful in setting the scene for the discussion which follows and indicating some of the tensions which are apparent, the space available to do this means that at times the discussion is rather sweeping. Particularly in the earlier parts of this discussion the perspectives are written about in a way that suggests that there is but one strand of feminist, Marxist or queer thought. As such many of the complexities of these theoretical and philosophical understandings go unexamined. Lewis makes thoughtful use of Rosa Luxemburg’s work to develop a dialectical understanding of revolution and reform, and from this suggests that reconciling tensions between objectivity and subjectivity might be understood as a form of Marxist praxis. However, this is again quite a fleeting discussion which would have benefitted from much further development. It seemed self-evident, for example, that moves to reconcile these tensions might include consideration of critical realist or material discursive approaches, yet these are not included.
As the book progresses the second and third sections unpack the relationship between Marxism and gender and consider how we might move from queer nationalism to queer Marxism. These sections raise further thought-provoking debates, and go some way to demonstrating that perhaps ‘Marxism’, ‘feminism’ and ‘queer’ are not irreconcilable. However, as before, these arguments are often so condensed that the ideological positions evoked read like a caricature.
This for me, is a pervasive difficulty and challenge which the book presents readers with. Lewis touches on many interesting and pertinent debates that, in the context of Critical Social Policy, need to be addressed both ideologically and practically. As such, Lewis’s overarching argument that we need – through awareness and solidarity – to build a more universal and relational ‘politics of everybody’ is one which is appealing in the context of leftist politics. However, because the aims of the book are so broad, and because it seeks to be accessible to those with little previous knowledge or understanding of (some or all) of these philosophical approaches, there is not enough space to develop the analysis in a systematic and coherent way. One particular example of this appears in the final section where Lewis sets out the axiom for a queer Marxist future. The third axiom is that ‘The inter-sectional model of oppression should be replaced with a unitary relational model’. It is clearly important to consider what intersectional theory does or does not offer to this debate and what we can learn from it about the dangers of homogenising and rendering invisible certain experiences. Nevertheless, Lewis provides us with no detailed consideration of, for example, the work of intersectional theorists or activists such as Hill Collins, hooks, Crenshawe, Yuval Davis or Anzaldúa.
The arguments in The Politics of Everybody are not evidenced in the way that we might expect from an academic text and this at times dilutes its perspective. It is, however, a thought provoking and original text. Holly Lewis seeks to overcome some historical divisions and move both political debate, and perhaps more importantly, political action forward.