Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:26:19 -0500 (EST) From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com> Subject: Re: M-I: Flirtation, Hegemony, "Bourgeois" Feminism, etc. I know this is out of context, but I would like to take the liberty of reposting here (from M-I) Yoshie's latest message, because I think it is wonderful. -malgosia Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:52:30 -0500 To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> Subject: M-I: Flirtation, Hegemony, "Bourgeois" Feminism, etc. Zeynep's account of what has transpired is accurate, so I do not repeat it here. The problem was never a matter of whether Adolfo and Mark breached the "code of chivalry." It was their hetrosexist language and behavior that provoked the protests of men and women on this list. But it is instructive to see how Adolfo tried to *evade* self-examination by attacking "bourgeois" feminism as a strawman. He used it as a sort of red herring so as not to call attention to his own conservativism regarding gender equality. Now "bourgeois" feminism is a real problem, but I happen to think that it is marxist women such as Zeynep who have had more occasions to struggle with it. Adolfo's (and several other individuals') posts have displayed the lack of familiarity with any kind of feminist theory and practice. Now the problem of "bourgeois" feminism. It is pointless to accuse "bourgeois" feminism of being "bourgeois." That is true, but so? It is as futile as denouncing IBM as "capitalist." Moralizing and name-calling of this nature won't attract working-class women to marxism; in fact, it is rather counter-productive. If you are interested in introducing working-class women to marxist perspectives, you had better acquaint yourself with the existing feminist organizations that address working-class women's concerns. Though Louis Proyect is right to point out the complexities of cross-class movements such as feminism, in practice, there are differences between feminist organizations in terms of priorities, membership, style of organizing, and so on, and I believe it is a duty of marxists to take part in, or support, the kinds of feminist organizing that have working-class orientation. (And of course, you need to do this while working hard to make women's concerns integral part of class-based organizings.) But even liberal "bourgeois" feminist organizations should not be avoided. You wouldn't avoid trade union work just because trade union bureaucracy is reformist or reactionary, would you? And unless you are an anarcho-syndicalist, you wouldn't categorically avoid parliamentary work either. (Please remember Lenin's criticisms of ultra-left-wing purism.) Also, I ask you guys to take a global perspective on the question of "liberal" bourgeois ideas. There are countries in the world (such as Sweden) where "liberal" ideas have become, to a significant degree, materialized in day-to-day practice. But you need to remember that is not the case at all with the majority of countries in the world, including my home--Japan. (And please remember Japan is the most "Westernized" nation outside of Europe, and I have yet to see anything like "affirmative action" there.) It is quite *Eurocentric* to regard "liberal" ideas as totally reactionary. Women in many parts of the world struggle against *feudal* (or pre-capitalist) prejudices and practices that are complexly intertwined with capitalist oppression. So when you criticize "bourgeois" feminism, you need to examine it by placing it in the concrete analyses of given social formations and historical conjunctures. Furthermore, just because ideas have liberal bourgeois origins doesn't mean that they are "wrong." Marxists should regard bourgeois achievements as complex and contradictory phenomena. "Freedom" and "equality" are bourgeois ideas, but that doesn't mean such ideas have any less validity. They are potent ideas that have been disseminated, deepened, and expanded through popular struggles and have come to mean more than originally intended by their bourgeois formulators in the 18th century Europe. The same can be said for feminism. The contemporary working-class women's feminism is richer and more expansive than that of J.S. Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, etc. Mariategui's essay "Feminist Demands" makes me beieve that the Amauta understood the power of such emancipatory ideas (even when they are deformed by practice). Now let me lighten up my post a little bit. I thought Sid's comment about flirtation was really funny, because whether one is male or female, one doesn't want to flirt with an Adolfo, and perhaps *that* is one of the tragedies of contemporary marxism. I would have loved to flirt with somebody like Mariategui, you know, but the current specimen of Peruvian marxism available in this virtual circle is so intellectually arid and impoverished that it is impossible to imagine anybody flirting with him. Marxism used to be a *seductive* idea. It attracted political as well as cultural vanguards. Gary says: "It did strike me however how tragic it is that the Left has exhibited so little interest in aesthetics and left the field to the fakers and the Rightists, so there was no way to raise the notion of the function of art in late capitalism." It wasn't always like this, and it doesn't have to be this way. Introducing his journal _Amauta_, Mariategui wrote: "The goal of this journal is to articulate, illuminate, and comprehend Peru's problems from theoretical and scientific viewpoints. But we will always consider Peru from an international perspective. We will study all the great movements of political, philosophical, artistic, literary, and scientific renewal. Everything that is human is ours. This journal will connect the new men of Peru, first with the other peoples of America, and then with the other peoples of the world." EVERYTHING THAT IS HUMAN IS OURS. Now, that is the spirit sorely lacking in many quarters of contemporary marxism. Mariategui's words inspire me with his generosity, largeness of the mind, openness to new ideas, and spirit of inquiry. His socialism was indeed "heroic and creative." As the end of the 20th century approaches, many people who call themselves marxists have become sour, bitter, defensive, and elegiac. They are threatened by many spectres--such as feminism and postmodernism--and waste time fighting rear-guard battles with bearers of the symptoms of the current capitalist crisis. How can we make marxism seductive once again? It is a question of eros, pedagogy, and hegemony. Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005