What does "is Steiner not complicit with this state of affairs?" mean here?
I think it means "dose not Steiner have any role in the conflicts between the feminists and the Marxists? yes, she has, and worse that...."
"Steiner may be recognising a hitherto suppressed feminine aesthetic but even to dare to speak of beauty seriously is to lay herself open to accusations of naivety, self-deception and a lack of humour. And, also, of course, of gross political incorrectness. For was not the experience of Beauty largely reconstructed in the eighteenth century as an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity, as the Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse has proposed? Rich and powerful men desire to possess it as a sign of their wealth and power – their lovely architectures and landscaped vistas, their art and clothes, their beautiful women and children, indicative of their superior position, health and happiness. In the grumbling skirmishes between the feminists and the Marxists, is Steiner not complicit with this state of affairs? Worse, the evolutionary psychologists have reconstructed much the same thing and, as we shall see in Chapter 4, some theorists and social scientists believe they may even have a political agenda."
Yes, it's a rhetorical question asking if Steiner is a part of this particular situation. The author believes she is a part of the problem, and asks the question simply to point out his viewpoint - he knows the answer already.