“Erotic Capital” versus Plain Old Patriarchal Capitalist Exploitation August 20, 2011
Posted by Garibaldy in Feminism, Social Policy.trackback
Some very interesting reading in the Guardian on Saturday about a new book called Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital by an ex-civil servant and sociologist attached to the London School of Economics called Catherine Hakim. Here’s the blurb for the book
Why do some people seem to lead charmed lives? They are attractive, but also lively, friendly and charismatic. People want to be around them. Doors open for them. The answer, this book shows, is in the power of erotic capital – the overlooked human asset that is at the heart of how we work, interact, make money, succeed and conduct our relationships.
Catherine Hakim’s groundbreaking book reveals how erotic capital is just as influential in life as how rich, clever, educated or well-connected we are. Drawing on hard evidence, she illustrates how this potent force develops from an early age, with attractive children assumed to be intelligent, competent and good. She examines how women and men learn to exploit it throughout their lives, how it differs across cultures and how it affects all spheres of activity, from dating and mating to politics, business, film, music , the arts and sport. She also explores why erotic capital is growing in importance in today’s highly sexualised culture and yet, ironically, as a ‘feminine’ virtue, remains sidelined.
Honey Money is a call for us to recognize the economic and social value of erotic capital, and truly acknowledge beauty and pleasure. This will not only change the role of women in society, getting them a better deal in both public and private life – it could also revolutionize our power structures, big business, the sex industry, government, marriage, education and almost everything we do.
Erotic capital is not simply formed of sexual attractiveness, but a wider range of elements, which were outlined in an article Hakim published last year. These elements she described as being beauty, sexual attractiveness, charm, liveliness, social presentation (working on your appearance), sexual competence, and in some cultures fertility.
Erotic capital is thus a combination of aesthetic, visual, physical, social, and sexual attractiveness to other members of your society, and especially to members of the opposite sex, in all social contexts. In some cultures, fertility is a central element of women’s greater erotic capital. We use the terms ‘erotic power’ and ‘erotic capital’ interchangeably, for stylistic variation. Erotic capital includes skills that can be learnt and developed, as well as advantages fixed at birth. Women generally have more of it than men, even in cultures where fertility is not an integral element, and they deploy it more actively.
The book is reviewed in the Guardian by Will Self. Self’s review is a mixed one. He seems to agree with her criticisms of the way that patriarchy and Christian monogomy have, in what she terms Anglo-Saxon societies oppressed women, to the benefit of men who in less constrained circumstances might struggle to find a partner. However, he also notes that the author’s attacks on feminism and the idea that men and women want sex equally will be more difficult for people to accept.
And so it proves, as demonstrated by the interview of Hakim by Zoe Williams. The following quote gives a flavour of how the interview went.
After the interview, Hakim rang the editor, posing two questions: was it my idea to interview her, or the desk’s? And was I in the middle of a marital breakdown? Clearly, she’d cooked up a dark motive, whereby my husband was ditching me for someone with superior erotic capital, and I’d tracked her down with the direct purpose of disagreeing with her.
The interview makes for entertaining reading, with Williams outlining a number of possible objections to Hakim’s arguments, some of which she vocalised and some of which she decided were not worth the hassle. The descriptions of Hakim (who according to Williams barks, sounds a little bit like Darth Vader, has a homphobic rant, and intimidates staff and patrons in the restaurant) demonstrate just how much of a dislike Williams took to her interviewee and her ideas. Williams certainly seems to have landed a number of solid punches on Hakim’s theories.
If feminists seem likely to dislike Hakim, the feeling is mutual. She accuses radical feminists of failing to break free of patriarchy when it comes to erotic capital in her book, and she has track record of criticising feminism. For example, a report she authored for the Centre for Policy Studies in January this year is entitled Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine. Here are a couple of quotes from it.
Unfortunately, feminist ideology continues to dominate thinking about women’s roles in employment and the family, and on how family-friendly policies are universally beneficial in promoting sex equality.
The pay gap in particular has outlived its purpose as an indicator of equality. Now that it has been reduced to 10% in Britain, there seems no point in treating further small changes, up or down, as significant. New indicators should be found to measure equal opportunities. Sex discrimination could now take a back seat while other types of discrimination are given priority. There should be a change of focus towards ethnic minorities instead.
Most of all politicians and commentators should take on board the full implications of the latest research. The 21st century will not be a re-run of the 20th century.
Politicians should also resist the temptation to impose more regulatory burdens on business which aim to achieve equality of outcomes. This applies to many areas of employment legislation, but most particularly at the moment to Commission calls for quotas on company boards and extensions of maternity leave across the EU.
The part of those quotes that gave the greatest insight into where the author (who used to work for the Department of Employment) is coming from, it seems to me, is the remark about not imposing more regulatory burdens on business. This is business-friendly feminism, something noted by Will Self in his review.
But more destructive of Hakim’s argument is her proposed solution: nothing less than a complete legalisation – and liberalisation – of prostitution and other “sex work”. Schopenhauer would undoubtedly approve, but I think it takes a particularly odd combination of the dewy-eyed and the hard-hearted to view young, attractive women prostituting themselves to older, uglier, wealthier men as a pretty state of affairs.
He continues
But by advocating that the undoubtedly existent “sex deficit” be made good with prostitution, she exposes the neoliberal calculus implicit in the very term itself. Reading Honey Money, I was reminded again and again of The Communist Manifesto: “It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.” We all know what Marx meant by “it”, and it certainly wasn’t some conveniently inter-sex individual.
I don’t often find myself agreeing with Self, but it seems to me he has hit the nail on the head.
I read the Williams piece two and assuming her critique is accurate- and she’s a good journalist – there are clear problematics as regards Hakims thesis. I take a more sex positive line than Self, who I also like, but there’s a lot of sense in his (and your) linking of her approach and neo liberalism.
One other thought, there’s a really bad habit emerging amongst some centre right tending academics at th moment when arguing about matters which elide with public and/or political policy to not explain or to see any need to explain and to take very patronising lines. There was some of that in Hakims interview. Me if I wrote something in my research area and th media picked up on it I’d expect an interview to pose tough questions and moreover that I’d have to explain and suppor my position.
I’m not a fan of Self, but thought he got this spot on.
Problem with some people is that they think nothing they say or do can ever be questioned. I suspect there might be an element of that here. The questions asked of the editor were only one step up from asking if it was the wrong time of the month. Absolutely shocking attitude – could only understand the failure to be convinced as the result of irrationality. One might be tempted to suggest that Hakim has absorbed certain patriarchal attitudes about the supposed female temperament.
”one reason why erotic capital has been overlooked is that the elite cannot monopolise it, so it is in their interest to belittle it and sideline it.”
What nonsense. Erotic capital, as a subset of cultural capital, is precisely based on how much you conform to elite standards of behaviour and presentation. Which is why you go to Pakistan and all the billboards have white or slightly-tan people on them.
+1
Another hostile review in today’s Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/aug/28/honey-money-catherine-hakim-review