Perspective Chapter: Patriarchy and Masculinity Represented in the Diaries of Seafarers Analyzed from the Perspective of Marxist Feminism – Domination Structure of Seafarers and the Marginalization of Women

Abstract

Looking at the human “body,” which has existed in contexts beyond the distinction between men and women, there are “dominators” and “the dominated” in which a situation of “oppressor” and “oppressed” is created. A world in which this is most evident is that of seafaring. There, domination is not limited to one structure; rather, a twofold domination structure exists. One is the domination and oppression among men, and the other is the existence of women who have been marginalized in the industry. Marxist feminism has clarified that the oppression of women in capitalist societies is based on the connection between capitalism and patriarchy, and in the industry, the vector of domination is not necessarily “male → female,” but rather “male → male → female.” The purpose of this paper is to focus on the shipping industry, which has been constructed at the base of capitalism and to point out the kinds of oppressive structures that have developed there, using the textual analysis of “diaries of seafarers” as a methodology, by focusing on the “bodies” of men and women represented in the history of seafarers in the East and West, with patriarchy onboard ships and the masculinity of seafarers as keywords.

1. Introduction

When we look at the human body, which has existed in one world beyond the distinction between men and women, we realize that there are always “dominators” and “dominated” people and that situations of “oppression” and “othering” are created. The world in which this is most evident is that of “seafarers.” There, the vector of domination is not limited to one; rather, a dual structure of domination exists. One is the domination and oppression that exists among men, and the other is the existence of women, who, as “concepts,” have been relegated to the margins in the shipping industry. In particular, Marxist feminism has clarified that the oppression of women in capitalist societies is based on the link between capitalism and patriarchy, but in the shipping industry, “capitalism” and patriarchy are complex, as the vector of domination is not necessarily “male → female” but “male → male → female.” The purpose of this paper is to focus on “seafaring,” or the shipping industry—which has constructed the basis of capitalism—and to identify what kind of oppressive structures have developed in this industry. In particular, by focusing on the “bodies” of men and women as represented in the histories of seafarers in the East and West, with patriarchy on board ships and the masculinity of seafarers as keywords, I point out that, in the shipping industry, which can be called the authority of materialism, the domination of men by men ultimately oppressed and otherized women. I also indicate that the domination of men by men in the materialist world of shipping ultimately oppressed and othered women.

2. Defining patriarchy and diversifying masculinity

In this section, I clarify the definition of patriarchy and the diversification of masculinity. No term has been used more extensively than the term patriarchy, and since the 1970s, it has been a key term in feminist theory¹. However, the concept of patriarchy existed long before it became essential in feminist theory, and originally, it did not necessarily mean the domination of women by men. In Japan, as well as in Europe and the United States, it refers to a family structure in which the male members of the family, who hold patriarchal authority within the family, dominate and control the other family members. In other words, the “patriarchal system” is a system of “patriarchs.” Thus, when discussing patriarchy, it is necessary to consider not only the “male → female” structure, but also the “male → male” structure. It is important that, regardless of the direction of the vector of domination, various forms of domination are preserved within the patriarchal system, and they become “culture” and form a strong ideology. In Sociology of Domination (Soziologie der Herrschaft), Max Weber classifies the concept of domination into three types—legitimate domination, traditional domination, and charismatic domination—and argues that patriarchal domination is the purest form of “traditional domination” [2]. In Weber’s theory of patriarchy, the primary stage of ruling control is the family, but the patriarchal family, in Weber’s sense, is not a so-called “family” in general but “one that has non-related members and is managerial in character.” Thus, “by extension, it is possible to discuss a certain type of political control by setting up a relationship between the sovereign and the administrative executives and subjects, with the patriarch and children.” [3]. Consequently, patriarchy can be extended to a much greater extent than the “family” if the basic conditions of “absolute power” and the “reverence of the members” are met.

Masculinity, on the other hand, is often possessed by “men,” and the term masculinity has been interpreted almost synonymously with “maleness” or “manliness.” However, the latest masculinity research suggests that masculinity is not a monolithic quality that all men possess. In the 1970s, masculinology began as part of the academic field of gender studies in the West. The leading scholar in this field is Robert W. Connell. In Masculinities and The Men and the Boys, Connell considers masculinity not as a singular form but as a plural form (masculinities), and he examines gender not only in terms of feminine/masculine contrast but also in terms of the interactions among the various masculinities. Thus, Connell refers to the plurality of masculinities. In addition to referring to the plurality of masculinities, Connell focuses on gender-based power relations by defining hegemonic masculinity as a form of hegemonic masculinity [4]. Just as patriarchy is not necessarily limited to the family or to the domination of women by men, so masculinity is not limited to male characteristics but is of a diverse nature, an interpretation that is presented to us more convincingly when we analyze seafarers’ histories.

3. The concept of seafarers and seafarers’ culture in the west and Japan

Before going into this essay, it is necessary to explain what kind of people seafarers were and why patriarchy and masculinity are associated with seafarers. Seventy percent of the earth’s surface is covered by the sea, and for humans living in such an environment, ships have been an indispensable means of transportation since ancient times. It is the seafarers who move the ships. It is interesting to note that the impression of seafarers is the same in all ages, in all regions, in all times, and in all places. It is no exaggeration to say that a seafarer culture has persisted across borders and throughout the ages. In Japan and in the West, at least during the era of sailing ships and steamships, which, unlike today’s automated ships, required a great deal of manpower to operate, seamanship and manliness were strongly associated with each other. It is no exaggeration to say that the ideals of masculinity were associated with seamen’s labor, and there was no room or need to dispute them. As an occupation of maximum physical strain, it is not surprising that physical toughness was held in very high regard and as essential to the proper execution of the job [5].

Moreover, it is no exaggeration to say that in no other profession does class have so great an influence on the duties of a man as it does in the seafaring profession. In the nineteenth century, as depicted in the nautical diaries of Richard Henry Dana, the subject of the analysis in this paper. In England, in particular, the rapid population growth provided the British merchant fleet with an abundant labor force, but the crews were subjected to poor working conditions, including poor food and low wages on board. The poor conditions also affected the character and ethics of the seafarers, leading to the prejudice that they were socially and morally inferior. Barton notes that merchant seamen perceived their being called Jack Tar as a cause of “oppression” [6].

These prejudices had a profound effect on the relationship between seafarers and captains. To manage and control rough and rowdy seafarers to hold them down by force with a certain amount of authority. The question is not whether the seafarers were socially or morally inferior but whether such prejudice against them resulted in an increase in the captain’s power. This is where the patriarchal system comes into play.

This was the case not only in the West but also in Japan, where the same rhetoric was used against seafarers. In Japan, one might say that the social and moral depravity of seafarers is represented by the stereotype that seafarers take part in betting and womanizing. This is not as simple as saying that they were simply prodigal and incorrigible. This stereotype is not only a product of the capitalist system of modern shipping but also a symbol of the oppression that seafarers were forced to endure. The unique culture of seafarers gave the impression that seafarers were corrupt and that they were subject to the oppression of deceptive substitution, as if debauchery were the responsibility of the individual who favored it.

4. Patriarchy and Masculinity represented in seafarers’ histories

This chapter points to the “patriarchal system” that persisted among men in the shipping industry, and how, through that patriarchy, masculinity was divided into masculinity of the dominant and of the ruled.

In Women Seafarers and Their Identities, Momoko Kitada points out that the definition of patriarchy, which has been referred to as a system that oppresses women, has a somewhat different meaning in the shipping world [7]. She further explains the unique patriarchal system on board the ship as follows.

This definition is a little different from the original meaning of patriarchy, which was based on the authority of [the] father over his sons in early societies in Western Europe (although the relationship between the two meanings is [self-evident]). It is relevant that the term “patriarchy” in its original sense can be applied to social relationships aboard single-sex (male) ships. The relationship between the Master (Captain) of a modern-day vessel and “his” crew (the rest of the seafarers) resonates strongly with the idea of an authoritarian father figure whose rule cannot be challenged but who is expected to act in the best interests of those in his “care.” Within ship culture, the authority of the Master over the crew is absolute [7].

The concept of domination between men on board, Kitada argues, implies a relationship in the hierarchy of captain and crew; however, her argument does not go so far as to explain why this is important.

I believe that to clarify the concept of patriarchy among men in shipping, I must go back to the early histories of seafarers—that is, to the age of sailing ships in the West—and to the early Meiji period in Japan, when ships were modernized. In early seafarers’ history, both in the West and in Japan, seafarers were not so much “seafarers” as “laborers.” Shipping companies, or capitalists, invested capital in vessels and other assets to employ workers (seafarers) and earn profits. Naturally, since seafarers do not own assets, they are employed by the shipping company and work under the organization’s command and order. Thus, a structure of domination between capitalists (shipping companies) and workers (seafarers) has already been established. In other words, it is clear that Marxist historical materialism has supported the world of shipping. However, what is noteworthy in the early history of seafarers is that the unique domination structure of the seafaring industry—“captain → crew” rather than the “shipping company → seafarer” domination structure—was firmly established.

It is well known that there is a great difference between an officer and a sailor. Therefore, it would be foolish to speak of the “histories of seafarers” as if they were all the same, but since the overwhelming majority of seafarers in the early days of shipping were sailors, it is thought that the contemporary image of seafarers has been formed mainly by sailors. For example, Richard Henry Dana’s Two Years before the Mast: A Personal Narrative, published in 1840, is a true account of his 2 years as a merchant sailor from 1834 to 1836. The “misery” is brought about by the hierarchy of captain and sailor, a “distinctive patriarchal system,” as he describes. In the record of August 1834, when the ship had just set sail, the following description appears.

Yet a sailor’s life is at best but a mixture of a little good with much evil, and a little pleasure and with much pain. The beautiful is linked with the revolting, the sublime with the commonplace, and the solemn with the ludicrous [8].

Dana’s description indicates that seafaring was a demanding occupation during the era of sailing ships in the West. Industrialization was originally oriented toward using labor as cheaply as possible. In this sense, it is not surprising that seafarers were forced to work hard, but what makes the seafaring industry unique is that, because of the harshness of the work, a system and culture unique to the industry were created, and the traces of this system and culture have not disappeared even today. The image of the crew formed during the era of sailing ships remains a representation of all seafarers, even today. Furthermore, in the domination of seafarers by captains, we can read a “distinctive patriarchal system” in seafaring as well as the existence of a hegemonic masculinity held by the controlling captain and a subordinate masculinity held by the lower-ranking sailors. This is most evident in the tyrannical control of the ship’s crew by the captain. In Two Years before the Mast: A Personal Narrative, Richard Henry Dana is on board a sailing ship in 1834 and witnesses the absolute power of the captain.

The captain, in the first place, is [the] lord paramount. He stands no watch, comes and goes when he pleases, is accountable to no one, and must be obeyed in everything, without a question even from his chief officer. He has the power to turn his officers off duty, and even to break them and make them do duty as sailors in the forecastle. Where there are no passengers and no supercargo, as in our vessel, he has no companion but his own dignity, and few pleasures, unless he differs from most of his kind, beyond the consciousness of possessing supreme power, and, occasionally, the exercise of it [8].

As discussed in the previous section, interpreting Weber’s theory of patriarchy in a broad sense, an organization in which both “absolute power” and the “reverence of members” exist is a group under a patriarchal control structure dominated and controlled by the patriarch, regardless of blood relations. From the above description, it can be understood that the “patriarchal system” that Weber discusses is prominent in the relationship between captains and sailors, but what is particularly noteworthy is that captains who are on the controlling side in such a “patriarchal system” possess hegemonic masculinity without exception. The captain’s power is the power to perform the duties of the ship’s officers. The captain’s power is not limited to the orders of duty on board the ship but emerges most clearly in Dana’s narrative in light of the scene in Chapter 15, titled “Flogging,” in which the body of the sailor is depicted.

When he was made fast, he turned to the captain, who stood rolling up his sleeves, getting ready for the blow, and asked him what he was to be flogged for. “Have I ever refused my duty, sir? Have you ever known me to hang back, or to be insolent, or not to know my work?”

“No,” said the captain[.] “[It] is not that that I flog you for; I flog you for your interference, for asking questions.”

“Can’t a man ask a question here without being flogged?”

“No,” shouted the captain[.] “[N]obody shall open his mouth aboard this vessel but myself,” and he began laying the blows upon his back, swinging half round between each blow, to give it full effect. As he went on[,] his passion increased, and he danced about the deck, calling out, as he swung the rope, “If you want to know what I flog you for, I’ll tell you. It’s because I like to do it! Because I like to do it! It suits me! That’s what I do it for!”

The man writhed under the pain until he could endure it no longer, when he called out, with an exclamation more common among foreigners than with us… [8]

The body of the sailor, who is flogged even though he has no right to be, symbolizes the contrast between the hegemonic masculinity of the captain, who occupies absolute power in a ship with a completely established patriarchal system, and the subordinate masculinity of the sailor, who has no choice but to submit to him.

5. Seafarers’ sexuality and the othering of women—complete separation of production and reproduction labor

How did the “male → male” structure of oppression, or distinctive patriarchy in seafaring, as described in the previous chapter, affect women? This section discusses the ways in which the sexuality of seafarers turned women into others, using From the bottom of the ship at 140 degrees Fahrenheit – Diary of a lowly sailor in the international Shipping Industry as a primary source, as it has been considered a valuable seafarer’s record in the early nineteenth century. This is the diary of Hachiro Hirono, a member of the engine department of Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line), which is commonly known as the “Hirono Diary” (named the “Hirono Diary” hereafter). This diary contains records from November 1928 to June 1931, when the author was on board the Akita Maru and Katori Maru as a lowly sailor of the engine department of the NYK Line. This diary conveys the actual employment conditions of pre-war seafarers (ratings). In the Hirono Diary, references to “women” appear frequently. For example, in his diary dated February 6, 1929, it is written as follows:

I have been tired of hearing our sailors talk about “women.” For the first four or five days on board, I listened to them out of curiosity, but every morning and evening, I [have] been tired of hearing them to the point that I have calluses on my ears. They returned to the ship in the morning and were happy to talk loudly and blatantly about the whore and the girl they had last night [9].

In the Hirono Diary, the so-called “drinking, gambling, and prostituting” are frequently mentioned, which could be considered a common practice in seafaring and is based on cultural and financial patriarchal domination. What did this manifestation of culture mean for women? I do not intend to theorize that modern seafaring was unsuitable for women because of the hard work involved. It is not that simple. If hard work determined the unification of gender in the seafaring industry, then the problem of excessive gendering in the contemporary seafaring industry should have been solved by today’s dramatic advances in technology and the high-technology nature of ships. However, the reality is that this has not been the case. It is not the harshness of modern seafarer labor that is significant but the impact of the patriarchal system that has supported such harsh labor.

It is noteworthy that the unique culture of seafarers was complicit in the gendering of the seafaring industry. The diversification of patriarchy and masculinity in the seafaring industry, which had constructed a “male → male” domination vector, became the basis of the shipping industry that supported the capitalist system, and the unique seafarers’ culture that was established there suggested a unity of gender and produced discourses that “othered” and excluded women. In other words, the “male → male” domination structure has been established as a holistic concept constructed in a relationship in which women are regarded as others. In fact, as already explained, given the harshness of the seafaring industry and the tyrannical control of the captain over the crew, it is not difficult to imagine that the space on board was not a space in which women could enter. This shows how the shipping world was a space that excluded women. In other words, seafarers on board were defined by a monosexual living system, and because of this, their lives became monosexualized, and a culture of othering women was born.

Here, I need to go one step further. What was the effect of the presence of women on individual seafarers? I have already noted that the modern seafaring industry was fully integrated into the patriarchal system of domination, but what was the consciousness of the individual seafarers who were placed in that system? As is clear from the above quoted passage, the word “woman” in the Hirono Diary appears mostly as a word meaning “whore,” “concubine,” or “prostitute.” Behind the word “woman,” one can always see “sexuality.” Considering the working and living conditions of modern seafarers, a ship was a closed space where only men existed, but this does not mean that it was “genderless.” On the contrary, the difference between one sex and the other is strongly expressed in a space where sexual unification is the norm. Their working environment must have had a significant impact on their sexuality, but, as Hirono describes, many of the lower-class sailors were single, so their sexuality was directed toward an unspecified number of women. This is where the concept of “prostitution” naturally emerges. The patriarchal system of domination that supported the seafaring industry not only excluded women but also helped to transform their status into that of being bought by men.

This is not limited to seafarers in Japan. In the history of British seafarers, the situation of seafarers’ prostitution was more intense. In Japan, the extant sailors’ diaries and other records indicate that sailors bought women when they disembarked in port and went out to brothels; there is no mention of large numbers of prostitutes boarding ships while they were at anchor. In England, however, it was more common for prostitutes to be brought on board; according to Suzanne J. Stark, in the early nineteenth century, when a ship came into port, there were hundreds of prostitutes on board until the ship sailed. This was not necessarily true of “merchant ships” alone but was more pronounced on “warships.” However, given the blurring of the distinction between naval and merchant crews in the early days of British shipping, onboard prostitution was not uncommon on merchant ships either [10].

When examined in light of patriarchal structures of domination and the othering of women in modern shipping, prostitution has even greater profound implications. In feminist theory, so-called “sex work” is not seen as a “sexually depraved act” but as a kind of economic activity and labor. If “becoming a prostitute” is an economic activity for the women depicted in the seafarers’ diaries, then the presence of “women” in the seafarers’ histories is significant. The incorporation of sexuality into the labor of seafaring means that prostitution determines the roles of men and women in seafaring based on their sexual identities. In Marxist feminist theory, the patriarchal concept is analyzed materialistically and is based on the idea that the male “sexual domination” of women has a “material basis.”

In “the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union,” Hartman argues that “…we define patriarchy as a set of social relations which has a material base and in which there are hierarchical relations between men and solidarity among them which enable them in tum to dominate women. The material base of patriarchy is men’s control over women’s labor power. That control is maintained by excluding women from access to necessary economically productive resources and by restricting women’s sexuality” [11]. Due to patriarchal domination, the background of the domination vector of “captain → seafarer” is the composition of “seafarer (male) → female,” and these vectors result in a materialistic foundation of profit for shipping companies. In the modern shipping industry, seafarers were the essential labor force for shippers and shipping companies to maintain their capital, while women were the devices for reproducing that labor force.

This is not to say that women were exploited by men through prostitution. As mentioned previously, insofar as “prostitution” is also an economic activity, men are “customers” for women, and as long as a transaction over sex is established, they are not being exploited. The problem is that patriarchal rule has in effect determined the behavior of seafarers (men) and women as role norms, the roles have been completely separated, with men as productive labor (seafarers) and women as reproductive labor bought by seafarers². In the contemporary era, prostitution was a reproductive device of the shipping industry, and the division of labor between male and female seafarers was determined, just as the division of labor in the modern era has been established as “male = outside production labor / female = inside reproduction labor.”

At the basis of the patriarchal double structure of power and control, “captain → seafarer,” there existed a stepping stone, even if only a small one, which was women. When women became “a prostitute” for seafarers, they were already relegated to a situation where they could only exist on the periphery of the shipping industry. The patriarchal system in seafarers’ culture did not directly dominate and oppress women, but it was also a threatening system for women on an entirely different level.

6. Conclusion

Ships and women have been considered from opposing angles in Western maritime history. While women were considered harmful to ships and seafarers, disruptive to shipboard order, and an invitation to misfortune, they were also objects of worship [12]. In the latter, we can cite as examples the fact that, in English, ships are represented by the pronoun “she”³ and that, from the nineteenth century onward, many popular ship figureheads were represented by half-naked women [13]. In the West, there are records of women serving on pirate ships, warships, and merchant vessels as early as the eighteenth century. In this sense, the history of seafarers in the West may appear to be far more generous toward women than in Japan. However, even in the West, when we consider patriarchy as a key word, we still see that the ship was a completely gendered space.⁴

This paper has shed light on the structure of patriarchal domination in seafarers’ histories. The concept of patriarchal domination has been a defining force in the histories of seafarers and has determined the nature of gender in the shipping industry. In other words, it is no exaggeration to say that the patriarchal system has supported the shipping industry in Japan. The memory of gender unification, which has been etched in the memory of the shipping industry for a long time, is surely inherited even today. Gender identity was the principle that maintained the order of the shipping industry, and it was believed that only men could be given subjectivity in seafaring. The image of the seafarer, which has been formed by the ratings in the histories of modern seafarers, may no longer be a relic of the past for large shipping companies, but it may still leave its mark on small companies. Even today, there are very few female ratings.

How can we dispel this and make the seafaring profession more open to women? It would not make sense to try to promote gender equality in terms of the ratio of numbers by establishing a quota system. After all, the author’s proposal may not be in line with the general goal of increasing the number of female seafarers, as there are limits to increasing the number of female seafarers. The patriarchal system of domination that once existed among men may no longer exist, but it has changed in the modern era, as it has othered women on a different level. The reason for the high turnover rate of female seafarers is overwhelmingly due to family reasons, such as marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing care. As discussed in this paper, this is because the system of the “gender role division of labor” is determined by the patriarchal system. In other words, the seafaring industry, which requires long hours of work outside the home, is an occupation that promotes more masculinity in terms of gender roles in the division of labor, and it is the seafaring industry that has promoted the patriarchal system. It is not surprising that it is difficult for women to enter such a profession.

It is a well-known fact that the working conditions of workers after the Industrial Revolution were so poor that socialist thought aimed at abolishing the capitalist system was established. Marxist feminism was developed under these circumstances as a socialist ideology that aimed to change class relations between capitalists and workers, and materialism not only created class exploitation but also caused the exploitation of women. In other words, Marxist feminism, in its early stages, to shrug off the poor working conditions of women workers, found the cause of women’s oppression in capitalist society, which had created such conditions. However, in light of the particularities of the seafaring industry, we see “another form of female oppression” in which women “cannot even become workers” in the shipping industry. There, as the original Marxist feminism found, we can find the cause of women’s oppression in capitalist society (the shipping industry), which brought about a class-dominated system of capitalists and workers, or captains and sailors [15, 16, 17, 18].