16 june 2000
from peter jones
to judy's point - yes, to clarify on this one. social relations between men
and women are definitely not reducible to class analysis and therefore analysis
of social structure in terms of social relations of production (class) alone
will not give us a concrete picture of the whole thing, including gender
relations. so i think we agree on this point. however, i would say (and
possibly you too?) that gender relations, although not reducible to class
relations, cannot be absolutely separated from class relations and antagonisms
(which are the sine qua non of the whole social system). so that gender
inequalities are not the direct, immediate expression of class relations but do
nontheless give expression to class exploitation in a form which is highly
mediated (through all kinds of other, relatively independent factors and
dimensions of social existence, including the family). does this make sense??
with very best wishes to all
P
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>Peter, all this has been very helpful to me -- really clarifying the issues.
>So thanks. I do appreciate the analysis of class relations/ modes of
>production. Without wanting to, I'm afraid I will be -- we are -- repeating
>old arguments, but in new terms. So I say, in response to the compelling
>case for a class analysis, that it does not adequately address the
>conditions of women then or now, and that women's relations to men -- gender
>relations -- are also 'objective' and demand analysis --- but on what terms?
>If gender relations do NOT seem to you worthy of consideration within an
>agenda for social justice, I need more explanation.
>Judy
>
>
> and social justice are compatible, the response
>>i think is not just to say - 'well that is your perspective but i have a
>>different one, and since no perspectives (or cultural narratives) are
>objective
>>then mine is equally valid' (as the postmodernist might say!). for me the
>>response to our Labour government representative is: 'you confuse what is a
>>fact about social existence today with things as they seem (or you would like
>>them to appear) from the standpoint of your own narrow interests, interests
>>which are based precisly on the practices of economic exploitation and the
>>consequent system of social relations from which you benefit, and indeed from
>>which you draw your whole raison d'etre. an all sided (objective) analysis
>will
>>show, however, that capitalist production (and hence capitalist social
>>relations) constantly and inevitably produces social inequalities, injustices
>>and antagonisms of all kinds, by the very nature of the system (and despite
>>people's intentions). but of course in traditional marxian terms this
>>'objective' analysis also corresponds to the standpoint of the practice (on a
>>world scale) of those social forces which are constantly striving to resist
>>this exploitation and in so doing to create the potential for a social
>>existence which is not based on exploitation (ie classes).so i'm suggesting
>>that this standpoint of practice does not negate the position on objectivity
>of
>>knowledge. i don't know whether you find this convincing or appealing though?
>>best wishes to all
>>P
>
>
>Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
>Graduate School of Education
>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>10 Seminary Place
>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:34 PDT