Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:36:42 -0500
From: Richard Moodey <moodey001-AT-mail1.gannon.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: On alienation


At 03:44 PM 01/14/2002 +0000,  John wrote:

>I think questions of sexism and anti-semitism are completely
>different issues. Alienated labour, sexism and anti-semitism
>operate at different levels of abstraction. My very short reply (as I'm
>working so have to be quick) would be that I would not want to
>*reduce* these types of power relations to alienated labour.

This question gives me an opportunity to write in terms of one of the key 
analytical categories Aquinas took from Aristotle, and modified -- the 
analogy of being.  In this context, alienation, sexism, and anti-semitism 
are not completely different, but partially the same and partially 
different.  There is enough similarity among the three for them to be 
compared, and enough difference for them to be contrasted.  This only 
escapes being trivial, of course, if it is followed up by creative attempts 
to specify the ways in which these are similar, and the ways in which they 
are different.  John expresses way of thinking about their similarity by 
calling them types of power relations, and expresses their difference in 
terms of their levels of abstraction.  It is possible, however, to specify 
other kinds of differences -- the terms of the relations are all expressed 
in different kinds of contrasts -- capitalist/worker, male/female, 
Gentile/Jew.  Clearly, these are cross-cutting dichotomies -- both Gentiles 
and Jews can be either capitalists or workers, male or female.

As I think about the similarities, I find a curious lack of parallelism 
between alienated labor and the other two terms.  The other two could be 
changed to something like "subjugated females" and "victimized Jews" -- or 
alienated labor might be changed to something like "class bias."   (I am 
tempted to go on and on, but I perhaps my point is clear.)

>I say this is a 'reasonable' position to adopt because we all need a
>way of defining precisely the societies in which we live. I prefer to
>*begin* (but not end) with the abstract definition of capitalism
>developed by Marx. Others prefer the term 'modernity'. The point is
>that we all implicitly and explicitly define the world as being
>structured in some way or another.

I would go a bit further, and say that we all define the world as being, 
not just "structured," but in need of  "redemption" of some kind or 
another.  In saying this, of course, I betray the categories in terms of 
which I have learned to think.  To use a phrase of Ernest Becker, there is 
a structure of evil.  Evil is not just a question of there being some bad 
people in the world, but our world is so structured that even good people 
perpetuate evil by their apparently good actions.  "Redemption" is not just 
an aggregate of personal moral reforms (not that there is anything 
intrinsically wrong about moral reform).  Redemption requires structural 
changes.

I am definitely not trying to claim that Marx did nothing more than 
translate traditional religious issues into secular terms.  On the other 
hand, Marx was no more free than any of us from his roots.

Regards,

Dick Moodey





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