Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:06:09 +0200
From: h961138-AT-stud.hoe.se (bwanika)
Subject: Re: Internal and external relations


>
>
>        I want to affirm with Colin and Howard that the adverse relations
>spawned by capitalism or patriarchy are, indeed, spawned by those
>structural mechanisms.  The only question that divides us is an
ontological>one:  How are those adverse relations spawned?  Logically or
causally?



Capitalism in  regard to what is internal and external relationship,  should
be differentiated from other relationships.  We should try to
re-conceptualise the ontological meaning/ objective in patriarchy. This
relationship is not intended to mere production and reproduction
relationship. Otherwise, matriarchal societies will be facing the same
difficult of power balance , which in this sense, is an external
relationship.  In a capitalistic society it is normal to idealise,  I  think
that is objectification to generating of =94ideal types =94. 
My argument here, is in sharp contradiction, to  what Andrew Sayer refers to
as contingent mechanisms. I do not believe, patriarchy is strictly a
contingently generated,  as capitalism is, though in this case, capitalism
acts as a contingent mechanism to idealisation of patriarchy. There is a
variable of power relationship which,  not all in societies is a must. On
the other hand , we can as well say there is  transitivity,  to gain
domination as the case is in capitalistic societies attr=EDbutive to the
distrubution of risks. Since it is away of survival, survival too, should be
geographically constitutive in relation , both as a causal result of society
structures quasily linked to resources and the nature of acquisition of
resources and means of  their distribution.
 
In fact partraircahl as well as matriarchal relationship, are internal as
intrinsic value. For example in most of the catholic communities and
strictly  not subjective as such. In this respect, what is executed
externally in a catholic patriarchal as well as in Matriarchal relationship
is constitutive of the internal relationship in the divinity of love,
enshrined in the external relationship of how to be. In some of  the archaic
societies, such relationship went on and on without discovering the short
comings, as the case is today. A historically relationship.  I think Emil
Durkheim make his point here. I believe this will not shock lady netters but
that is a fact of nature . Now let me give a brief reference in the real world.

If we look at the urban youth, particularly gang of young  males and compare
them to the emergency of gangs of young  females, we should understand the
fact that external relationships are contingently /causally reinforced  by
abandonment internal relationship. That is the Bhaskarian Unity of the
opposite in effective voluntarism. Which  in this case is itself a result of
external relationship in human acts of solidarity and mutual responsibility.

Capitalism absolutelises such relationship into internal and external. Thus
individualisation , which in this case, becomes functional in a money locus
, whereby man has to have an external relationship linked to a job,  to
generate such a relationship. If and only if it will be an external
relationship. This is an economic law. A cause to absolute objectification
(subjective relationship - external )of seemingly internal relationship,
such as family issues. Yes, in family relation the agents are aware of the
do and don=92ts but not what they imply in the foreseable future. Something
which makes internal relationship continuously emergent, i.e. reducible and
inducable.

Here, we find the high rate of divorce, since internal relationship are only
reducible to power relationship exactly as a master- slave relationship in a
capitalistic production mode.  We loose the pulse of freedom in human
dialectic. Every agent wants to be an absolute individual, egocentrically
present, in the external relationship linked to money and the market to self
realisation. Thus capitalism contigently, inflicting total damage to what is
internal, through absolute objectification of external relationship, from a
visibly,  continuous emergent internal relationship.
For instance, Parental relationship to children, capitalism has
individualised, through objectification  of what is an intrinsically a mere
expression of ones feeling towards other beings. Which in this case, is
generated by sympathy which is internally individual consiousness a
derivative of external social realtioship.
The view here can't be compared to a labour work and a capital owner ,
whereby the relationship has got nothing to do with effective voluntarism .
If internal, the consume needs products to be consumed and in that case some
one has to produce them. The relationship between the agents in production,
can only exist when the capital owner objectify labour in terms of a
production factors,  with a profit tug on the head on human productivity, to
the consumer through the logic=92s of the market place which in this case are
both internal and externally a consciously generated realities to both the
capitalist and the worker (i.e. certain state making claim of interest on
other peoples territories : states are made of people ) Workers do believe
without export markets they are doomed legitimating the internal
(organistional efficiency wage and external relation middle class feelings ).

Therefore let us consider inter- relationality of internal and external in
concerning human feelings towards other and absolutely internal and external
when this concerns commodification.

NB: Are law makes aware that if they stop people from planting tomatoes in
there courtyards , as they do with flowers,  they do create constriants thus
legitimating the monopolistion of capitalistic tendences ?

Bwanika,  Orebro Sweden.






>Think as well of the falling rate of profit.  By speaking of emergently
>external or contingent relations, I was suggesting that they are spawned
>causally rather than logically.  But as I think about this, it is probably
>enough for me if we say that such properties are internal as long as we
>recognize that there could be internal relations that at a moment nobody
>knows about.  The math example seems to suggest the affirmative.  In that
>case, I'd be satisfied.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>doug porpora
>dept of psych and sociology
>drexel university
>phila pa 19104
>USA
>
>poporad-AT-duvm.ocs.drexel.edu
>
>
>
>