Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:36:28 -0800 (PST)
From: LH Engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re:  BHA: Re: promising


Without doubt promising, like production, is a general phenomenon of 
human experience -- the introductory paragraph to the last chapter of 
RTS (which I don't have at hand right now) is very good on connecting 
Bhaskar's theme of monitoring our monitoring with making an 
anticipatory commentary on the future and being able to make that 
anticipatory commentary come true.  One form of that is promising.

Nonetheless, promising, like production, I think, does not ooccur 
except in concrete historical circumstance.  Promising in the middle 
ages reflected notions of fidelity linked to hierarchal bonds from the 
king on down.  That concept is transformed by market relations.  I 
grant you there must be some residue which escapes the shopkeepers 
hustle and bustle, but that must also find roots in some alternative or 
anticipated framework of social relations.  Does the reproduction of 
patriarchy, for example, bear in a distinguishable way on the question 
of promising?  White supremacy?  Does *resistance* to the social 
relations of patriarchy and white supremacy bear in a 
distinguishable way on the question of promising?  Socialism I'm sure does 
and I would expect comrades to treat a promise between themselves 
differently than according to the standards of bourgeois morality.

I'd like to know how Zeus' practice of promising reflected Ancient 
Greek social relations.

Howard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > It starts to sound like Gutenberg invented the promissory note, not the
 > printing press.  (Hm...)  But anyway, promises long preceded capitalism,
 > nyet?  One of the cute things about Zeus was that once he made an oath, he
 > could never break it.  (Much to his regret at times.)  My point is that,
 > however much capitalism has converted the promise into the contract, promises
 > in some form or other are necessary for *any* kind of sociality.  The main
 > reason promises are enforced is that it's hard to maintain any sort of
 > collectivity without them.  (Socialism without promises?  Like socialism in
 > one country?  A "socialism" without promise.)  I'm just trying to keep us
 > from confusing a generic social element with its historically specific form.


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---