The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex

In 1975, feminist anthropologist Gayle Rubin published “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” a paper that became one of the foundational texts of feminist theory and gender studies. By introducing the concept of the “sex/gender system,” Rubin not only challenged contemporary Marxist feminist understandings of women’s oppression but provided a revolutionary theoretical framework for understanding the relationships between gender, sexuality, and power. This paper marked the birth of gender studies as an independent academic field, and its influence continues to this day.

Theoretical Background and Writing Motivation

Rubin wrote this paper against the backdrop of dilemmas facing feminist theory in the early 1970s. Marxist feminism at the time attempted to explain women’s oppression through capitalism and class struggle, but this explanation faced obvious limitations: women’s oppression existed in pre-capitalist societies and also in socialist countries; the sexual division of labor within families seemed to have its own logic independent of modes of production; and issues of sex and gender could not be fully reduced to economic relations.

As an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, Rubin read widely in social science and humanities theory under the guidance of her advisor Marshall Sahlins. She wanted to major in Women’s Studies, but no such program existed at the time. Therefore, she declared an independent field and became the university’s first Women’s Studies graduate in 1972.

Rubin’s goal was to develop a theoretical framework that could explain both the universality and specificity of women’s oppression—a framework that could understand both its cross-cultural existence and analyze its historical changes.

The Revolutionary Concept of the Sex/Gender System

The core contribution of Rubin’s paper is the introduction of the “sex/gender system” concept. She defines it as “the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed sexual needs are satisfied.”

The revolutionary nature of this concept lies in several aspects:

Distinguishing Biological Sex from Social Gender: Rubin was one of the first theorists to systematically distinguish between biological sex and social gender, showing how gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined.

Beyond the Concept of “Patriarchy”: She argued that “patriarchy” as a concept was too vague and ahistorical to precisely analyze the specific mechanisms of gender oppression in different societies. The sex/gender system provided more precise analytical tools.

An Independent System of Oppression: Rubin argued that the sex/gender system is relatively independent from economic modes of production. While it interacts with economic systems, it has its own logic and dynamics.

Historicity and Variability: Different societies have different sex/gender systems, meaning gender arrangements are historical, variable, and therefore changeable.

Critical Reading of Lévi-Strauss

An important part of Rubin’s paper is her critical reading of anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss’s theory of kinship. Lévi-Strauss argued that the exchange of women is the fundamental mechanism for establishing kinship relations and social alliances.

Rubin notes that “the exchange of women” is a “seductive and powerful concept” because it “places the oppression of women within social systems rather than biology.” But she also critically analyzes the implications of this concept:

Women as Gifts: In kinship systems, women are exchanged as gifts between men to establish social ties. This makes women objects rather than subjects of relationships.

Origin of Gender Asymmetry: The exchange system creates fundamental gender asymmetry—men are the exchangers, women are the exchanged. This asymmetry becomes the foundation for other forms of gender inequality.

Compulsory Heterosexuality: For the exchange system to work, women’s sexual availability to men must be ensured. This leads to the institutionalization of compulsory heterosexuality.

Function of Incest Taboo: The incest taboo not only prohibits certain sexual relationships but, more importantly, compels the establishment of broader social ties, creating alliances through the exchange of women.

Feminist Rereading of Freud

Another key part of the paper is a feminist rereading of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Rather than simply rejecting psychoanalysis, Rubin uses it as a tool for understanding how the sex/gender system operates at the individual psychological level.

Her analysis includes several key points:

The Social Nature of the Oedipus Complex: Rubin argues that the Oedipus complex is not a universal stage of psychological development but a product of specific kinship systems. It is the process of shaping children to meet the requirements of a specific sex/gender system.

Production of Gender Identity: Psychoanalysis shows how children acquire gender identity, how they learn to become “male” or “female.” This process is full of repression, prohibition, and coercion.

Repression of Bisexual Potential: Rubin argues that all children have bisexual potential, but the sex/gender system represses same-sex desire through the Oedipal crisis, producing “normal” heterosexual subjects.

Repression of Female Sexuality: In patriarchal sex/gender systems, girls must shift from active to passive, from clitoral to vaginal pleasure, from mother to father. This process is full of trauma and loss.

Marxism and Women’s Oppression

While Rubin critiques Marxism’s reductionist explanations of women’s oppression, she also draws on Marxist analytical methods. She applies political economy concepts to analyze sex and gender:

Production and Reproduction: Just as Marx analyzed commodity production, Rubin analyzes the “production” of gender—how society transforms biological individuals into gendered subjects.

Analogy to Surplus Value: Women’s unpaid labor in the family is similar to the surplus value created by workers, but this exploitation has its specificity and cannot be simply reduced to class exploitation.

Historical Materialist Method: Rubin adopts a historical materialist approach, understanding the sex/gender system as historical, material social relations rather than abstract cultural ideas.

Necessity of Revolution: Just as Marxism calls for overthrowing capitalism, Rubin calls for overthrowing the existing sex/gender system and creating new, more equal gender arrangements.

Theoretical Contributions and Impact

“The Traffic in Women” has had profound influence on multiple academic fields:

Independence of Gender Studies: The paper helped establish gender studies as an independent field of study with its specific objects of research and theoretical frameworks.

Distinction Between Sex and Gender: This distinction became the foundation for all subsequent gender theory, influencing theorists like Judith Butler.

Pioneer of Intersectional Analysis: Although not using the term “intersectionality,” Rubin’s analysis showed how gender, sexuality, kinship, and economics mutually constitute each other.

Foundation for Queer Theory: Rubin’s analysis of compulsory heterosexuality and the repression of bisexual potential laid groundwork for later queer theory.

Critiques and Debates

Rubin’s paper has also sparked important critiques and debates:

Overdeterminism: Cultural critic Laura Kipnis questioned in 2006 whether the psychoanalysis employed by Rubin led to an overly deterministic assessment of women’s lives.

Limitations for Historical Application: Historian Joan Wallach Scott questioned whether psychoanalysis could effectively help historians interpret historical actors, noting that historical subjects might live their lives in ways different from analytical categories.

Cultural Specificity Issues: Some critics argue that Rubin’s analysis relies too heavily on Western models of kinship and psychological development and may not apply to all cultures.

Agency Issues: The paper has been criticized for overemphasizing structure and systems, potentially underestimating individual agency and capacity for resistance.

Methodological Innovation

Rubin’s paper is methodologically innovative:

Interdisciplinary Synthesis: She creatively synthesized Marxism, structural anthropology, and psychoanalysis, demonstrating how different theoretical traditions could be used for feminist analysis.

Critical Appropriation: Rather than simply accepting or rejecting male theorists’ work, she critically reread and transformed their theories for feminist purposes.

Combination of Theory and Politics: The paper is not just academic analysis but also a political manifesto, showing how theoretical work can serve liberation politics.

Conceptual Innovation: By creating new concepts (the sex/gender system), she provided new tools for thinking and analysis.

Contemporary Relevance

Nearly fifty years later, Rubin’s analysis remains powerfully relevant:

Transgender Rights: The concept of the sex/gender system helps understand gender’s social construction, providing theoretical support for transgender rights movements.

Globalization and Gender: In the era of globalization, understanding how different societies’ sex/gender systems interact becomes even more important.

New Forms of Kinship: With developments like same-sex marriage and assisted reproductive technologies, Rubin’s analysis of kinship gains new relevance.

#MeToo Movement: The analysis of women being exchanged as sexual objects helps understand the systemic nature of contemporary sexual violence and harassment.

Political Significance

Rubin’s analysis has radical political implications:

Necessity of Systemic Change: If women’s oppression is rooted in the sex/gender system, what’s needed is not reform but systemic change.

Importance of Sexual Revolution: Changing the social organization of sex and gender is a necessary condition for women’s liberation.

Coalition Politics: Understanding how different forms of sexual and gender oppression are interrelated provides a foundation for building broader liberation alliances.

Utopian Imagination: By showing the historicity and variability of existing systems, the paper opens space for imagining different gender arrangements.

Conclusion: Theory as a Tool of Liberation

Gayle Rubin’s “The Traffic in Women” is not just an academic achievement but a theoretical tool for liberation politics. By proposing the concept of the sex/gender system, she provided a powerful analytical framework for understanding and challenging gender oppression.

The paper’s enduring value lies in showing how rigorous theoretical work can serve political liberation. By critically synthesizing different theoretical traditions, Rubin created new ways of understanding, allowing us to see that seemingly natural gender arrangements are actually socially constructed, historical, and therefore changeable.

“The Traffic in Women” reminds us that women’s oppression is not biological destiny or historical accident but the product of specific social systems. Understanding how these systems operate is the first step toward changing them. In this sense, Rubin’s theoretical work is itself a form of political practice, an effort to achieve liberation through understanding.

This paper opened a new era in gender studies, its influence extending far beyond academia. It has provided theoretical tools for generations of feminists and gender scholars, continuing to inspire the pursuit of more just and free gender arrangements. As Rubin demonstrated, theory not only explains the world; more importantly, it can help us change it.