1
Introduction Sex and Sociological Metaphors
Two sociologists have recently called on their profession to be more modest, more ambitious and more joyful in its endeavor to explain the social world.1 While sociology cannot make the world a better place, they go on to claim, it can certainly offer fresh ways of understanding it through its theories, concepts, and metaphors. In this study we scrutinize one sociological metaphor that has been gaining considerable traction: that of sexual capital, which is increasingly being usedâand not only by sociologists, gender scholars, and sex researchers. In everyday talk sexual capital has become a common metaphor for addressing the actual social and individual consequences of âour world made sexyâ and how people âmake do.â2
Ordinary people will cringe at the use of capital for a domain like sexuality: after all, isnât sexuality a realm of pleasure, self-abandon, improvisation, play? Why should we connect it to the economicâsociological metaphor of capital? It is because sexuality is always âin societyâ and is regulated by changing societal forces. The three monotheistic religions have relentlessly regulated sexuality, making it central to the ideology of purity, to the family, and to political power. The way sexuality appears in ideals of the self is always social. If in the traditional world sexuality was shaped by religion, in late modernity it has become chiefly intertwined with the economy.
The metaphor of sexual capital assumes that sex is a resource for future gains in a way that goes well beyond sexual activity per se. Unlike concepts whose meanings, at least in theory, are widely shared and accepted, metaphors are more open and less precise. They have a certain vehicular quality, and it is their conceptual imprecision that sometimes makes them useful to the sociologistâs imagination.3 But, although the sexual capital metaphor has become quite popular, on the whole it remains undertheorized.
In common sociological usage, sexual capital refers to the returns people may receive from investing money, time, knowledge, and affective energy in constructing and enhancing their sexual self, the aspect of their identity that concerns sexuality. Some may opt for plastic surgery in a bid to beautify their face or body, while others may consume popular sex advice or join âseduction communitiesâ in order to train their sexual subjectivity to become more confident. These different investments may generate a better position from which to compete on sexual access to the bodies of others. This sexual competition can be oriented toward pleasure maximization or toward the mere feeling of being desired by others.
In this study we will describe the historical conditions under which four different forms of sexual capital have appeared, thrived, and sometimes waned. We will further suggest that under neoliberalism these forms of sexual capital change, and their transformation is responsible for phenomena as diverse as Silicone Valley sex parties as expressions of high-tech ideals of creative, fun, and collaborative work, genital plastic surgery among upper-middle-class patients, and even some sex workersâ beliefs that through their services they are able to garner self-esteem and develop emotional resilience and other employable skills.4 Through the lens of capital, we offer a detailed analysis of the effects of neoliberal capitalism on sex and sexuality. Neoliberal sexual capital, as we dub it, designates the ability to glean self-appreciation from sexual encounters and to use this self-value so as to foster employability.
To be sure, the idea that sexuality may increase oneâs self-value is not new. After all, the character of Don Juan offers a paradigm of masculinity in which sexual conquests are undertaken for their own sake, independently of marriage and institutions, because they presumably confer a value to the self. Don Juan embodies an attribute of masculinity increasingly independent of the power of the church and defined by a capacity to generate desire in women and to satisfy the subjectâs own desires. Such masculinity appears as a form of domination over women when a man like Don Juan would ruin their reputation and leave them without their only resource on the marriage market, namely their virginity. Yet, at least in Molièreâs play and in Mozartâs opera, that character was punished by God himself, which thus suggests that, for serial sexuality to generate a socially recognized value to the self, it must be embedded in a social and normative order that makes it operative. In fact, in the era when Christianity was dominant, women were by default defined by a sort of sexual capital, namely by chastity. In traditional marriage markets, the womanâs (and, to a lesser extent, the manâs) reputation depended on virginity. Chastityâthe lack of sexual activityâthus played the role of signaling womanâs conformity to Christian ideals, thereby increasing her value. By default, sexuality played an important role in mate selection, because in traditional societies a marriage market was based both on reputation and on the economic assets of the prospective mate. In many ways, it is this normative order, which protected women from predators, that Don Juan challenges; and in consequence his sexuality is still highly constrained by the normative order of Christian patriarchy. For a full-fledged sexual capital to emerge, sexuality needs to autonomize itself vis-Ă -vis religion.5 What has enabled the formation of a sexual capital is the loosening of the norms and taboos that regulate sexuality, along with the increasing incorporation of sexuality into the economic field. When sexuality becomes structured by economic strategies, yields economic advantages, and becomes key to the economic sphere itself, we speak of sexual capital organized in a neoliberal culture, or neoliberal sexual capital.
Our understanding of neoliberal sexual capital in particular should be distinguished from three main arguments that are usually brought up when thinking about the relationship between sex and capitalism. These are: sex as redress to gender imbalances; sexual identities as a platform for sexual citizenship; and sexual commodification or the monetization of sexuality. Let us briefly address each of the three and explain how our approach to neoliberal sexual capital may differ, improve, or complement them.
First, we write against a well-known and controversial conceptualization of sexual capital by sociologist Catherine Hakim, who has defined erotic capital as a (markedly feminine) personal asset that women can use in the labor market and in intimate relations. In her view, erotic capital combines âbeauty, sex appeal, liveliness, a talent for dressing well, charm and social skills and sexual competence. It is a mixture of physical and social attractivenessââand these, she claims, can be capitalized on to get better jobs or negotiate âbetter dealsâ in intimate relationships.6 Catherine Hakimâs understanding of erotic capital points to a real and powerful social reality, made more acutely relevant by the various industries that use, exploit, and expose the (womanâs) body: sexuality, as an attribute of the person, became increasingly transformed into an economic asset. However, hers remains a crude and limited way to define sexual capital, and for a number of reasons. For one thing, Hakim is oblivious to the historical and cultural processes that enabled the transformation of sexuality into capital. For example, media industries have been a major source for the codification of standards of beauty and for the conversion of beauty into capital in social fields. This process was driven by powerful economic interests. By treating sexual capital as if it were an obvious, unobtrusive attribute of âattractiveâ women, Hakim did not ask herself why attractiveness plays a role in various social fields that enable it to function as a capital. Second, Hakim made sexual capital an attribute of women, thereby accepting and reinforcing not only sex stereotypes but the very ways in which women are dominated, that is, through their bodies. Hakim in other words fails to understand that, if sexuality is a form of capital, this is because it uses attributes that also maintain the domination of women by men. As Catharine MacKinnon has cogently argued, sexuality is to heterosexual relationships what work is to the capitalist producer: the privileged site for the exploitation of women by men.7 Even more surprising, perhaps, is that Hakimâs understanding of sexual capital is premised on the hypothesis that there is a natural, biological male lust that women can use for their advancement: she seems oblivious to the fact that the use of women for sexual purposes and womenâs use of their own sexuality have always been part and parcel of the most oppressive form of patriarchy, not of its subversion. What characterizes patriarchy is precisely the fact that sexuality has represented an almost exclusive avenue for unwealt...