[Reader-list] Marx on Gender and the Family: A Summary

[Asit Das]

Marx on Gender and the Family: A Summary
by Heather Brown <https://monthlyreview.org/author/heatherbrown/>   monthly
review

Heather Brown is assistant professor of political science at Westfield
State University. This article is adapted from the conclusion of her book *Marx
on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study*
<http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Marx-on-Gender-and-the-Family> (Haymarket,
2013), where it appeared in a somewhat different form.

Many feminist scholars have had, at best, an ambiguous relationship with
Marx and Marxism. One of the most important areas of contention involves
the Marx/Engels relationship.

Studies by Georg Lukács, Terrell Carver, and others have shown significant
differences between Marx and Engels on dialectics as well as a number of
other issues.1
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en1>
Building
on these studies, I have explored their differences with regard to gender
and the family as well. This is especially relevant to current debates,
since a number of feminist scholars have criticized Marx and Engels for
what they see as their economic determinism. However, Lukács and Carver
both point to the degree of economic determinism as a significant
difference between the two. Both view Engels as more monistic and
scientistic than Marx. Raya Dunayevskaya is one of the few to separate Marx
and Engels on gender, while likewise pointing to the more monistic and
deterministic nature of Engels’s position, in contrast to Marx’s more
nuanced dialectical understanding of gender-relations.2
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en2>

In recent years, there has been little discussion of Marx’s writings on
gender and the family, but in the 1970s and ‘80s, these writings were
subject to a great deal of debate. In a number of cases, elements of Marx’s
overall theory were merged with psychoanalytic or other forms of feminist
theory by feminist scholars such as Nancy Hartsock and Heidi Hartmann.3
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en3>
These
scholars viewed Marx’s theory as primarily gender-blind and in need of an
additional theory to understand gender-relations as well. However, they
retained Marx’s historical materialism as a starting point for
understanding production. Moreover, a number of Marxist feminists also made
their own contributions in the late 1960s to ‘80s, particularly in the area
of political economy. For example, Margaret Benston, Mariarosa Dalla Costa,
Silvia Federici, and Wally Seccombe have all tried to revalue housework.4
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en4>
In
addition, Lise Vogel has attempted to move beyond dual systems towards a
unitary understanding of political economy and social reproduction.5
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en5>
Nancy
Holmstrom has also shown that Marx can be used to understand the historical
development of women’s nature.6
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en6>

The dual-systems theory of patriarchy and capitalism which was a common
form of socialist feminism in the 1970s and ‘80s was viewed as a failed
project by many in the 1990s and beyond. In any event, the fall of
Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe probably had a negative
effect on the popularity of socialist feminism. As Iris Young had already
argued, dual-systems theory was inadequate since it was based on two very
different theories of society—one involving the historic dynamic
development of society, primarily social, economic and technological, and
the other based on a static psychological view of human nature.7
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en7>These
two theories are very difficult to reconcile because of these vast
differences. However, their critiques of what they viewed as Marx’s
determinism, gender-blind categories, and emphasis on production at the
expense of reproduction provided a starting point for my reexamination of
Marx’s work by means of close textual analysis—this in addition to the work
of the Marxist feminists mentioned above.

Marx’s work contained elements of Victorian ideology, but there is much of
interest on gender and the family scattered throughout his work. As early
as 1844, in his *Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts*, Marx argued that
women’s position in society could be used as a measure of the development
of society as a whole. He was certainly not the first to make a statement
such as this—Charles Fourier is often attributed as the inspiration for
this statement—but for Marx, this was more than simply a call for men to
change the position of women. Instead, Marx was making a dialectical
argument directly related to his overall theory of society. In order for
society to advance beyond its capitalist form, new social relations would
have to be formed that did not rely solely upon a crude, alienated
formulation of value. Human beings would have to become able to see each
other as valuable in themselves, rather than as only worth what one
individual can provide to another. Women would be especially significant in
this regard, since they have tended to be a marginalized group within most,
if not all, societies. Thus, men and women would have to reach a point of
development where an individual is valued for who they are, rather than any
abstract category of man, woman, etc.

Moreover, Marx appears to point in the direction of gender as a dynamic
rather than static category. Certainly, Marx never directly made this
claim: however, in the 1844 *Manuscripts *and in *The German Ideology*, he
provided a strong critique of, and alternative to, traditional dualistic
views of the nature/society dualism. Instead of nature and society existing
as two distinct entities that interact with each other without
fundamentally changing the essence of itself or the other, Marx argues that
the two are dialectically related. As human beings interact with nature
through labor, both the individual and nature is changed. This occurs
because human beings exist as part of nature, and the labor process
provides the means for such a temporary unity. Since both nature and
society are not static entities, Marx argued that there can be no
transhistorical notion of what is “natural.” Instead, a concept of
“natural” can only be relevant for specific historical circumstances.

Although one should not draw too close a parallel between the
nature/culture dualism and the man/woman dualism—to do so could lead to a
reification of these categories that we seek to transform—the sort of
dialectical thinking that Marx evinces in regard to the nature/culture
dualism is also evident in Marx and Engels’s discussion of the
gender-division of labor in *The German Ideology*. Here, they point to the
division of labor in the early family as something that is not completely
“natural.” Instead, even in their brief discussion of the development of
the family, they point out that this division of labor based on gender is
only “natural” for very undeveloped productive relations, where women’s
different biology would make it difficult for them to carry out certain
physically demanding tasks. The implication is that women’s supposed
inferiority in these societies is something that can change as society
changes. Moreover, since a social element is involved, more is needed than
technological development: women will have to work themselves to change
their situation.

In at least two other places in his early writings, Marx discusses the
position of women in capitalist society. In *The Holy Family*, Marx
criticizes Eugène Sue’s moralistic commentary on the fictional Paris
prostitute, Fleur de Marie, in *Les Mystères de Paris*. In this novel,
Fleur de Marie is “saved” from poverty and her life as a prostitute by a
minor German prince. He entrusts her into the care of a religious woman and
a priest who both teach her of the immorality of her behavior. Eventually,
she enters a nunnery and dies shortly thereafter.

Here, Marx criticizes Sue for his uncritical acceptance of Catholic social
teaching which focuses on an abstract form of morality that can never
actually be achieved. Human beings are not merely spiritual beings that can
ignore their bodily needs. This was particularly relevant for someone like
Fleur de Marie since, as Marx notes, she had no options available to her
other than prostitution to provide herself with a livelihood. However, the
priest showed Marie her moral degeneration and told her of the guilt that
she should feel, despite the fact that she had no real choice in the
matter. Thus, in this text, Marx shows a great deal of sympathy for the
plight of working-class women. Moreover, he criticizes the one-sidedness of
Christianity, which seeks to raise the position of a pure form of mind
against a pure form of the body.

Marx, however, did not limit his critique of women’s concrete situation
under capitalism to the working class. In his 1846 essay/translation of
Peuchet’s work on suicide, Marx points to familial oppression within the
upper classes.8
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en8>Three
of the four cases that Marx discusses involve female suicide due to
familial oppression. In one case, a married woman committed suicide, at
least in part because her jealous husband confined her to the home and was
physically and sexually abusive. The second case involved an engaged woman
who spent the night at her fiancé’s house. After she returned home, her
parents publicly humiliated her, and she later drowned herself. The final
case involved the inability of a young woman to get an abortion after an
affair with her aunt’s husband.

In two of the cases, Marx shows great sympathy for the plight of these
women by emphasizing certain passages from Peuchet and surreptitiously
adding his own remarks. Moreover, Marx points to the need for a total
transformation of the bourgeois family, giving emphasis to the following
passage from Peuchet: “*The revolution did not topple all tyrannies. The
evil which one blames on arbitrary forces exists in families, where it
causes crises, analogous to those of revolutions*.”9
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en9>
In
this way, Marx points to the family in its bourgeois form as oppressive,
and something that must be significantly changed if a better society is to
come about.

Marx and Engels returned to a critique of the bourgeois family in *The
Communist Manifesto*. There, they argued that the family in its bourgeois
form, based primarily on the management and transfer of property, was in a
state of dissolution. The material conditions that had led to this form of
the family were disappearing among the proletarians because they had no
property to give to their children. They may have once been small
subsistence farmers, but this was no longer possible as land was
expropriated by a number of means and they were forced into the cities and
factories to make their livelihood. Without this ability to transmit
property to their children after their death and to control their family’s
labor-power during their lifetime, the father’s power was diminished
significantly, leading in the direction of a different form of the family.
Marx and Engels, at this point, did not discuss in any detail what would
potentially come after the dissolution of this form of the family, however.

Although *Capital* is devoted to the critique of political economy, there
is a significant amount of material on gender and the family. In it Marx
returns to and concretizes what he described as the abolition [*Aufhebung*]
of the family in *The Communist Manifesto*. As machinery is introduced into
the factories, requiring less physically demanding labor, women and
children become important categories of workers as well. Capital finds
these workers particularly valuable, since they are from an oppressed group
that can be compelled to work for less.

A number of other passages in *Capital* illustrate that Marx held a much
more nuanced view of the position of women in the workforce than most
feminists acknowledge. For example, as women entered the workforce, he
writes, they potentially gained power in their private lives since they now
contributed monetarily to the family’s welfare, and were no longer under
the direct control of their husbands or fathers for a large portion of the
day. This had a significant effect on the family. Here, Marx shows both
sides of this development. On one hand, long hours and night-work tended to
undermine traditional family structures, as women were to a certain extent
“masculinized” by their work and were often unable to care for their
children to the same extent that they had been able to do in the past. On
the other, in a later passage, Marx notes that this seeming “deterioration
of character” led in the opposite direction—towards “a higher form of the
family” in which women would be the true equals of men.10
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en10>

Even though, Marx’s discussion of the oppression of women workers was
somewhat limited, in *Capital*, volume I as well as his earlier draft
material for *Capital *he offers a strong critique of the concept of
productive labor under capitalism. Here, he makes a strong distinction
between the concept of productive labor under capitalism and a concept of
productive labor *as such*. The first is a one-sided understanding of
productivity, where the only relevant factor is the production of surplus
value for the capitalist. However, the second concept of productive labor
focuses on the production of use values. Here, labor is valued as such if
it produces something that can be used by individuals or society at large.
This provides at least some ground for revaluing traditional women’s labor,
even though Marx discussed this very little.

Marx’s political writings illustrate a certain evolution over time. Marx’s
theoretical insights are often incorporated into his political activities.
Some of his earliest political writings on the strikes in Preston, England
in 1853–1854 offer a relatively uncritical assessment of the workers’
demand for a family wage for men. While Marx never directly repudiated this
type of argument, his later positions appear to have changed, since he
worked to incorporate women into the First International on an equal basis
to men in the 1860s.

Marx’s later work illustrates a further appreciation of working women’s
demands during and after the Paris Commune. This is especially evident in
the 1880 “Programme of the Parti Ouvrier,” co-written by Marx, Paul
Lafargue, and Jules Guesde. The preamble, written solely by Marx, states
“That the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings
without distinction of sex or race.”11
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en11>
This
was an especially strong statement in France, where the rather sexist
Proudhonist tradition predominated among socialists.

In his writings for the *New York Tribune *in 1858, Marx returned to his
discussion of the position of upper-class women in capitalist society. In
two articles for the *Tribune*, Marx recounts the confinement of an
aristocratic woman to an asylum in order to silence her and prevent her
from further embarrassing her politically influential husband. Here, Marx
criticizes all involved in Lady Bulwer-Lytton’s confinement, arguing that
she was far from insane. While Marx does not discuss the ways in which
women in particular are often falsely confined as a means of control, he
does note the ease with which people can be confined regardless of their
actual psychological state, if those requesting the confinement are wealthy
and powerful enough to induce medical professionals to give their
signatures. Additionally, he shows a great deal of sympathy for Lady
Bulwer-Lytton, who was effectively silenced due to an agreement by which
she was only able to regain her freedom so long as she agreed to never
discuss the incident again.

His last years, from 1879 to 1883, were among the most theoretically
interesting periods of Marx’s life, especially concerning gender and the
family. In his research notebooks, as well as his letters and published
writings, he began to articulate a less deterministic model of social
development, in which less-developed societies could be the first to carry
out revolutions so long as they were followed by revolutions in more
advanced states. Marx incorporated new historical subjects into his theory.
It was not just the working class as an abstract entity that was capable of
revolution. Peasants, and especially women, also became important forces
for change within Marx’s theory. These notebooks give some indications,
albeit in a fragmentary way, of how Marx saw women as subjects in the
historical process.

Marx’s notes on Morgan are particularly important, since they provide a
direct comparison with Engels’s *Origin of the Family*, which Engels
claimed to be a relatively close representation of Marx’s reading of
Morgan’s *Ancient Society*. But there are significant differences. The most
important of these are Marx’s less deterministic understanding of societal
development and his more dialectical grasp of contradiction within the
relatively egalitarian clan.

Engels tended to focus almost solely and one-sidedly on economic and
technological change as factors in societal development. Marx, in contrast,
took a more dialectical approach, where social organization is not only a
subjective factor, but in the right situation can become an objective one
as well. This is particularly relevant to understanding their differences
on gender oppression. Engels argued that the development of agricultural
technology, private property, and the subsequent changes in the clan from
mother-right to father-right led to the “world-historic defeat of the
female sex,” where women would remain in a condition of subjugation until
the destruction of private property. In contrast, Marx not only noted the
subordinate position of women, but also pointed to the potential for
change, even under private property, with his discussion of the Greek
goddesses. Even though ancient Greek society was quite oppressive to women,
confining them to their own section of the home, Marx argued that the Greek
goddesses potentially provided an alternative model for women. Marx also
showed in these notes the progress of upper-class Roman women, in contrast
to their Greek counterparts. Moreover, Marx tended to take a more nuanced
and dialectical approach to the development of contradictions in these
early egalitarian societies. Engels tended to view the relatively
egalitarian communal societies as lacking significant contradictions,
especially with regard to gender relations.12
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en12>
Marx,
however, pointed to limitations in women’s rights in the communally based
Iroquois society.

Engels’s *Origin of the Family *only discussed Marx’s notes on
Morgan’s *Ancient
Society*. But Marx’s notebooks on ethnology span a number of other sources.
His notes on Henry Sumner Maine’s *Lectures on the Early History of
Institutions *and Ludwig Lange’s *Römische Alterthümer* (“Ancient Rome”)
offer significant discussions of gender and the family in pre-capitalist
societies as well, particularly Ireland, India, and Rome.13
<https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#en13>
In
his notes on both authors, Marx appears to have appropriated much of
Morgan’s theory of the development of the clan. While Marx’s notes on Maine
tend to be much more critical than those on Lange, in both cases Marx
criticizes their uncritical acceptance of the patriarchal family as the
first form.

This is particularly important since it tends to point in the direction of
a historical understanding of the family. In these, as well as the Morgan
notes, Marx charts the contradictions present in each form of the family
and how these contradictions sharpen, leading to significant changes in the
structure of the family. Here, Marx appears to view the family as subject
to a similar dialectic as that of other areas of society.
Evaluating Marx’s Work On Gender and the Family For Today

Historically, Marxism’s relationship with feminism has been tenuous at
best, often due to the lack of discussion of gender and traditional women’s
issues by many Marxists. Moreover, even where gender and the family have
been addressed, these studies tend to follow Engels’s less nuanced, more
economically oriented argument. However, I think Marx’s work on gender and
the family displays significant differences from those of Engels. Important
questions remain regarding the possible value of Marx’s views on gender and
the family: What, if anything, does Marx have to offer to contemporary
feminist debates? Is there the possibility of a Marxist feminism that does
not lapse into economic determinism or privilege class over gender in
analyzing contemporary capitalist society?

Certainly, Marx’s account of gender and the family occasionally evinced
signs of Victorian morality; however, as I have argued, this is not
necessarily a fatal flaw in his work. There are a number of areas in which
Marx’s theory of society provides the possibility of incorporating feminist
insights into Marxism to establish a unitary theory of gender and class
oppression, which does not fundamentally privilege either.

One of the most important aspects of Marx’s work for understanding gender
and the family is Marx’s dialectical method. Marx’s categories came from
his analysis of the empirical world, seen as dynamic and are based on
social relationships rather than static ahistorical formulations. Thus,
these categories could change as society changes.

This could potentially be valuable to a feminist analysis. Marx never
directly addressed gendered dualisms and categories, but he leaves some
room in his theory for change within these categories. This is especially
true in regard to two dualisms: the nature/culture dualism and the
production/reproduction dualism. In both cases, Marx points to the
historical and transitory nature of these formulations. Nature and culture
are not absolute opposites: they are, instead, moments of the whole. Labor,
as a necessary activity for survival, mediates humanity’s relationship with
nature in very specific ways, based on the particular mode of production in
question. Moreover, in terms of the production-and-reproduction dualism,
Marx is normally careful to note that both are necessary to humanity, but
that these will take different forms based upon the technological and
social development of the society in question.

Marx points to two different aspects of these categories—the historically
specific elements and the more abstract characteristics that exist in every
society. Thus, in terms of understanding women’s relationship to these
dualisms, a logical formulation within Marx’s thought would be to point out
that biology is certainly relevant. However, biology cannot be viewed as
such outside of the social relations of a particular society. This can
potentially help to avoid the biologistic and deterministic arguments of
some radical and socialist feminists who essentialize “women’s nature,”
while at the same time avoiding relativism since, in Marx’s view, the world
is not completely socially constructed. Rather, biology and nature are
important variables when viewed within a socially mediated framework.

This is important for another reason. While Marx’s theory remains
underdeveloped in terms of providing an account that includes gender as
important to understanding capitalism, his categories, nonetheless, lead in
the direction of a systematic critique of patriarchy as it manifests itself
in capitalism since he is able to separate out the historically specific
elements of patriarchy from a more general form of women’s oppression, as
it has existed throughout much of human history. In this sense, his
categories provide resources for feminist theory, or at least areas for new
dialogue, at a time when Marx’s critique of capital is coming to the fore
once again.

With his focus on social mediation and his emphasis on understanding
particular social systems, Marx, as contemporary scholarship has
demonstrated, avoided economic determinism. Certainly, economic factors
play a very significant role in his thought, because they are seen as
conditioning other social behavior, particularly in capitalism. However,
Marx was often careful to note the reciprocal, dialectical relation between
economic and social factors. As was the case with nature and culture as
well as production and reproduction, economic activity and social activity
are dialectical moments of the whole in a particular mode of production. In
the last analysis, the two cannot be separated out completely. As Marx
illustrated in his “Suicide” essay and *New York Tribune *articles, where
he points to the unique ways in which economics and the specifically
capitalist form of patriarchy interact to oppress women. Thus, in these and
his other writings, Marx, at least tentatively, began to discuss the
interdependent relationship between class and gender without fundamentally
privileging either in his analysis.

Despite the fact that not all aspects of Marx’s writings on gender and the
family are relevant today, some carrying the limitations of
nineteenth-century thought, they offer important insights on gender and
political thought. Even though Marx did not write a great deal on gender,
and did not develop a systematic theory of gender and the family, it was,
for him, an essential category for understanding the division of labor,
production, and society in general. Marx’s discussion of gender and the
family extended far beyond merely including women as factory workers. Marx
noted the persistence of oppression in the bourgeois family and the need to
work out a new form of the family. Additionally, Marx became more and more
supportive of women’s demands for equality in the workplace, in unions, in
the First International, and as he studied capitalism and witnessed the
role of women in such important events as the Paris Commune of 1871.
Despite their unpolished and fragmentary character, Marx’s notes on
ethnology are particularly significant, since Marx points quite directly to
the historical character of the family through his selections of Morgan,
Maine, and Lange. Moreover, Marx’s use of dialectics is an important
methodological contribution to feminism and social research in general,
seeming to view gender as subject to change and development, rather than as
a static concept.
Notes

   1. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn1>
See
   Georg Lukács,History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist
   Dialectics (Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press 1971), originally 1923; and
   Terrell Carver,Marx & Engels: The Intellectual Relationship (Bloomington:
   Indiana University Press, 1983).
   2. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn2>
Raya
   Dunayevskaya,Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy
   of Revolution (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), originally
   1981.
   3. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn3>
Heidi
   Hartmann, “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More
   Progressive Union’, in Linda Nicholson, ed.,The Second Wave: A Reader in
   Feminist Theory (New York: Routledge, 1997), originally 1981; Nancy
   Hartsock,Money, Sex, and Power: Toward A Feminist Historical
Materialism (London:
   Longman, 1983).
   4. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn4>
Margaret
   Benston, “The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation
   <http://archive.monthlyreview.org/index.php/mr/article/view/MR-021-04-1969-08_2>
   ,”Monthly Review 21, no. 4 (1969): 13–27; Mariarosa Dalla Costa and
   Selma James,The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community
(Brooklyn:
   Petroleuse Press, 1971); Silvia Federici,Wages Against Housework (Bristol:
   Falling Wall Press, 1975); Wally Seccombe, “The Housewife and Her Labour
   under Capitalism,”New Left Review I, no. 83 (1974): 3–24.
   5. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn5>
Lise
   Vogel,Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory(New
   Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983).
   6. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn6>
Nancy
   Holmstrom, “A Marxist Theory of Women’s Nature,”Ethics 94, no. 3 (1984):
   456–73.
   7. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn7>
Iris
   Young, ‘Socialist Feminism and the Limits of Dual Systems Theory,”Socialist
   Review 10, nos. 2–3 (1980): 169–88.
   8. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn8>
Karl
   Marx, “Peuchet on Suicide,” in Eric Plaut and Kevin Anderson, eds.,Marx
   on Suicide (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1999), originally
   1846.
   9. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn9>
Ibid,
   51.
   10. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn10>
Karl
   Marx,Capital, vol. I (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 621; originally
   1867–75.
   11. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn11>
Karl
   Marx in David Fernbach, ed.,The First International and After, Political
   Writings, vol. 3 (London: Penguin Books. 1992), 376.
   12. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn12>
This
   is elaborated on in Heather Brown,Marx on Gender and the Family: A
   Critical Study (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013), chapter 5.
   13. ↩
   <https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/#fn13>
The
   notes on Maine are available in Karl Marx (Lawrence Krader, ed.),The
   Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx (Studies of Morgan, Phear, Maine,
   Lubbock) (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Co., 1972) Marx’s notes on
   Lange are unpublished; English translations were graciously provided to the
   author by those working with the MEGA project.