-
Defending Prostitution:Charges Against Ericsson
- Temple University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
..·S) Defending Prostitution: Charges Against Ericsson CAROLE PATEMAN ERICSSON'S contractarian defense of prostitutionI extends the liberal ideals of individualism , equality of opportunity, and the free market to sexual life. The real problem with prostitution, Ericsson claims, is the hypocrisy, prejudice, and punitive attitudes that surround it. Once unblinkered, we can see that prostitution is merely one service occupation among others and that, with some reforms, a morally acceptable, or "sound," prostitution could exist. This defense has its appeal at a time when strict control of sexual conduct is again being strenuously advocated. However, Ericsson's argument fails to overcome the general weaknesses ofabstract contractarianism, and his claim that he has rebutted the feminist charge against prostitution cannot be granted. The central feminist argument is that prostitution remains morally undesirable, no matter what reforms are made, because it is one of the most graphic examples of men's domination of women. Ericsson's argument illustrates nicely how liberal contractarianism systematically excludes the patriarchal dimension of our society from philosophical scrutiny. He interprets feminists as arguing that prostitution is "undesirable on the ground that it constitutes an extreme instance of the inequality between the sexes," and he then interprets inequality to be a matter of the distribution of benefits and burdens. It thus appears that a remedy can be found for the withholding of a benefit (access to prostitutes ) from women by extending equality ofopportunity to buy and sell sexual services on the market to both sexes. Ericsson ignores the fact that men earn a good deal more than women, so the latter would still have a greater incentive to be sellers than buyers (or would be confined to the cheaper end of the market as buyers; Ericsson pays no attention to the different categories of prostitution). Moreover, Ericsson notes that three-quarters of the men who are in the market for prostitutes are married. Any change in attitudes would have to be sufficient to make it acceptable that wives could spend what they save from housekeeping money, or spend part of their own earnings, on prostitutes. Second, Ericsson dismisses as meaningless the charge that prostitution unfairly burdens women because they are oppressed as prostitutes; properly understood , prostitution is an example of a free contract between individuals in the market 93 Ethics 561 (April 1983). © 1983 by The University of Chicago. Reprinted by pennission of the University of Chicago Press. Copyrighted Material 217 218 I CAROLE PATEMAN in which senrices are exchanged for money. Ericsson's defense does not and cannot confront the feminist objection to prostitution. Feminists do not see prostitution as unacceptable because it distributes benefits and burdens unequally; rather, to use Ericsson 's language of inequality, because prostitution is grounded in the inequality of domination and subjection. The problem ofdomination is both denied by and hidden behind Ericsson's assertion that prostitution is a free contract or an equal exchange. The most striking feature of Ericsson's defense is that he makes no attempt to substantiate the key claim that prostitution is the sale of sexual senrices. His assertion relies on the conventional assumption that free wage labor stands at the opposite pole from slavery. The worker freely contracts to sell labor power or senrices for a specified period, whereas the person of the slave is sold for an unlimited time. Ericsson comments that if a prostitute "actually did sell herself, she would no longer be a prostitute but a sexual slave". More exactly, since she has the civil andjuridical status of a free individual in the capitalist market, she would be in a form ofsubjection that fell short of slavery. Ericsson avoids discussing whether this is indeed the position of the prostitute because he ignores the problems involved in separating the sale of senrices through contract from the sale of the body and the self. In capitalist societies it appears as if labor power and senrices are bought and sold on the market, but "labor power" and "services " are abstractions. When workers sell labor power, or professionals sell senrices to clients (and Ericsson regards some prostitutes as "small scale private entrepreneurs") ,2 neither the labor power nor senrices can in reality be separated from the person offering them for sale. Unless the "owners" of these abstractions agree to, or are compelled to, use them in certain ways, which means that the "owners" act in a specified manner, there is nothing to be sold. The employer appears to buy labor power; what he actually obtains is the right...