Prompt 1 Colin Farrelly argues that a functionalist interpretation of Marx’s historical materialism can furnish us with the “critical emancipatory knowledge” required to understand the creation, persistence, and evolution of patriarchy (at least where patriarchy is understood to mean womens’ lack of control over whether and to what degree they engage in “reproductive and caring labour”). In a paper of roughly 6-7 pages (double spaced), critically evaluate Farrelly’s case. Here is a (nonexhaustive) list of possible directions in which you might take this paper: 1) Defend Farrelly’s case. 2) Argue that the history and progression of patriarchal relations of production is at least as plausibly explained by a different theory that is incompatible with the functionalist interpretation of historical materialism. 3) Argue that Farrelly’s functionalist explanation does not, in fact, furnish us with “critical emancipatory knowledge” (either because it is a defective explanation or because it is practically useless to those who seek to address patriarchy).
