File spoon-archives/marxism-feminism.archive/marxism-feminism_1997/97-04-21.095, message 33


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 ---




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005