Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 00:02:42 -0400
From: Douglas and Linda Rogers <douglas.rogers-AT-sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: M-FEM: Re: Freud and Marx, Babies Out


Stephen:

Thank you for your insights.  Indeed I never made any generalizations about
anyone's inability to bond with others in their childless state.  I do find
it interesting however that I have been barraged all day by (at this point)
clusively male opinions (who coined phallus-bearing blow-hards....how apt!)
that have attempted to disaparage my motivations for having children and
attempted to invalidate my experience.  Excuse me gentlemen, but it is
exactly this sort of nonsense that leaves feminists out in the cold in most
Marxist organizations and was the reason for establishing this listserv in
the first place.   I found the message that talked about middle class
pressures  hilarious as a daughter of a labour organizer and grandaughter of
the potato famine...talk about projection!  Anyway, my next message will be
an unsubscribe message.  If there are any women left on this list... send me
a private message as to where you are meeting these days.   I'm off to bring
coffee to some people on a strike line now... undoubtably there is something
wrong with me that I choose to bring them comfort.

Linda

 At 12:32 PM 5/17/97 -1000, you wrote:
>Linda,
>
>I woudn't want to deny the  transformative effects that having a child
>can have on people.  But I am wary of the potential essentialisation or
>idealisation of the experience.  That is to say, it is possible to be a
>full human being and not be a mommy or daddy.  Many who have chosen to not
>have children are people who do not need to have a child to connect with 
>be able to bond with others.  
>
>The right is often making appeals to the glories of mommyhood or
>parenthood (though we know, for obvious reasons,  they are much more
>interested in valorizing the former). The end result is usually a process
>of excluding those who choose to not(or cannot) have children from the
>possibility of being fully social beings.  I'm not saying that this is
>what you are doing, but it certainly is what the right does and some on
>the left fall into this same pattern I'm afraid.   The left, in my opinion
>should keep the focus on contributing to making the experience of
>parenthood one that
>is less constrained by economic inequity (i.e.by promoting full health
>care protection, maternity leave for both sexes, high quality public
>day-care, good educational opportunities for children,...).
>
>Parenthood is just one of many experiences that might contribute to  one's  
>becoming a more fully social being. God help us if we need it to "cause"
>us to do so.
>
>Steve    
>
>
>On Sat, 17 May 1997, Douglas and Linda Rogers wrote:
>
>>  as someone weak on theory but strong on the experience you
>> write about.  Having birthed 3 babies... I can only tell you that "fear and
>> horror" was not the biggest part of the experience for me. ( I had my first
>> baby at 22...and he is now 22!)   Pain yes and fear also... but at the end
>> triumph and joy.  Also, I believe that we have overlooked the way in which
>> becoming parents connects us to others and works against the insularity that
>> is a threat to mental health and the movement of the individual to embrace
>> socialist principles.  Before I became a mother, I was pretty locked inside
>> my head.  I also had a fair bit of self-loathing about my inability to
>> really connect and care about others as I did myself.  Birthing and bonding
>> with my own baby was the link that allowed me to connect to others....and
>> released me from the feeling that I was a "loveless" individual.  "Baby"
>> became a bridge to other mothers, other children and finally to all society.
>> Birth I believe can be a transformative experience for both mothers and
>> fathers that allows them to see how the welfare of one is the welfare of all.
>> 
>> Linda
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   At 12:53 PM 5/17/97 +0200, you wrote:
>> >In a back-to-basics posting to the other lists I wrote:
>> >
>> >>A few days ago Chris B wrote concerning Freud and Marx:
>> >>
>> >>>Louis Godenas' striking initial post to this thread
>> >>>on marxism-and-sciences raised many issues.
>> >>>
>> >>>One is the question of why do we speak of the two in
>> >>>the same breath? What do they have in common?
>> >>
>> >>Wouldn't it be better to look at who "we" are in this case before assuming
>> >>a consensus and assuming the consensus is correct to "speak of the two in
>> >>the same breath"?
>> >>
>> >>Anyway, the biggest reason Chris sees for treating Marx and Freud as two of
>> >>a kind is the following:
>> >>
>> >>> ... both writers brilliantly asserted against all the
>> >>>empiricist tendencies, the *reality* of
>> >>>complex inner dynamics, one in the economy/society, the other
>> >>>in the human mind. And this is what makes them both giants,
>> >>>and also to represent something even bigger than themselves.
>> >>
>> >>But, being Chris, he doesn't specify what dynamics he's referring to. Also,
>> >>being Chris, he refers to the human *mind* rather than the *emotions*. But
>> >>let's not pick nits.
>> >>
>> >>What the two did that was the same, and matched Darwin's (the other member
>> >>of the Whole-y Trinity) work, was look at involuntary development, using a
>> >>basically historical and materialist approach like the one used by the
>> >>great Indo-European philologists. All of them came to conclusions that were
>> >>to make a clean sweep of the delusive masks used to hide the actual
>> >>processes at work in their fields. This was experienced by reaction as a
>> >>whip across its snout (and still is), hence its snarling fury.
>> >>
>> >>Darwin: the development of species (vs Linne's static classification and,
>> >>God bless its socks, Religion).
>> >>
>> >>Marx: the development of capitalism (modern bourgeois society) (vs more
>> >>functionalist approaches, and Religion).
>> >>
>> >>Freud: the development of the human personality (vs atomizers,
>> >>phrenologists and astrologists, oh, and Religion).
>> >>
>> >>Marx and Freud were also united by a thing about metabolism. And the basics
>> >>of keeping alive.
>> >>
>> >>Marx examined the ins and outs of production and consumption. Thanks to
>> >>previous work, he was able to establish a basic "cell", the commodity, and
>> >>a basic quantitive unit, socially necessary labour time.
>> >>
>> >>Freud examined the ins and outs of the body, and classified their emotional
>> >>impact in relation to their more or less primary/primitive character:
>> >>
>> >>Food in -- oral
>> >>
>> >>Food out -- anal
>> >>
>> >>Sperm in -- genital (funny he missed Babies out ;-) )
>> >>
>> >>He was much more of a pioneer in his field than Marx was in economics.
>> >>
>> >>And not only did he concentrate on the bodily functions but of course he
>> >>was the first to seriously look at the way the mind dealt with their impact
>> >>-- the Interpretation of Dreams is a brilliant analysis of the unguarded
>> >>mind at work trying its damndest to get the emotional turmoil raging in the
>> >>body into some kind of conceptual order. The apparently aimless swilling
>> >>about of dream images is pulled into perspective by humanity's great
>> >>gravitational constants of food and love.
>> >>
>> >>And of course the immediate social setting was put under the microscope --
>> >>the role of "parents" as the Gods of early childhood, nurturing and
>> >>malevolent by turns, capricious and omnipotent.
>> >>
>> >>Freud's real greatness was to go beyond understanding to action. It is only
>> >>possible for unfeeling people to read his accounts of analysis and not
>> >>realize that his patients (and thousands like them) were being driven by
>> >>emotional forces completely out of their control that were gradually
>> >>acknowledged and made accessible to examination and finally  contemporized
>> >>and brought under control. From being supernatural and timeless, these
>> >>oppressive furies were rendered natural (material) and historical.
>> >>
>> >>The beauty of it is, that however much of Freud's detail is wrong, the
>> >>basic machinery of cure is there, and *enough* of it works to make it or
>> >>any other successful form of materialist (as opposed to supernatural
>> >>mumbojumbo) therapy a useful weapon in the arsenal of health versus
>> >>sickness. Like most medical care, it's a democratic right. Everyone has the
>> >>right to function with "normal" feeling  in a democratic society. Our task
>> >>in relation to Freud and Freudianism is not to throw out the baby with the
>> >>bathwater. If we can conceptualize the therapeutic foundations and practice
>> >>of successful Freudianism, then we will have advanced the science of
>> >>humanity.
>> >>
>> >>The real, material social setting was made much more historical and
>> >>generally useful by Reich particularly and others of his generation, as
>> >>they examined the effect on parents of working conditions, oppression and
>> >>poverty and the way this was transmitted to the kids.
>> >>
>> >>All in all, to take Freud seriously is to question the very foundations of
>> >>contemporary bourgeois society for its production of so many sick and
>> >>dysfunctional families and individuals.
>> >>
>> >>In the same way, taking Marx seriously brings you into full frontal
>> >>confrontation with contemporary bourgeois society.
>> >>
>> >>Reject Marx, and you end up with homo oeconomicus, the autonomous
>> >>economically omniscient individual, atomized and dehumanized.
>> >>
>> >>Reject Freud, and you end up with homo insulatus, the autonomous island
>> >>individual, scientologically "aware" of everything, feeling nothing,
>> >>likewise atomized and dehumanized.
>> >
>> >
>> >Now, it seems to me that the whole business of "Babies out" is the  most
>> >traumatic normal experience an adult human being can expect (ie barring
>> >accidents or torture), so can anyone here on Ms fem or thax provide any
>> >references or better still a brief account of work putting this experience
>> >in the centre of  women's emotional lives? I mean, penis envy is a pretty
>> >weak thing to represent dissatisfaction with your own sex when you have
>> >fear and horror of childbirth to put you off becoming an adult woman.
>> >
>> >Also, more generally, with reference to oral-anal-genital, it's striking
>> >that the first two (food in and food out) have you in a state of dependence
>> >and vulnerability to other individuals while an infant, but you eventually
>> >learn to feed and excrete for yourself, whereas the third (sperm in) has
>> >you in a constant state of dependence and vulnerability to another
>> >individual throughout your reproductive life. One of Freud's great
>> >contributions was focusing on this dependency-vulnerability interface and
>> >the impact it can have on personal relationships. Stands to reason that if
>> >for some reason or other you never grow out of a dependency-vulnerability
>> >fixation at either of the first two levels, it'll severely affect your
>> >attitude at the third.
>> >
>> >Lastly, something that really goes without saying, although I'd better
>> >spell it out in words of one syllable: one of the great ideological hatreds
>> >the bourgeoisie has for Freud is his concentration on the *unconscious*. In
>> >our adult relationships we are driven by motives of which we are not aware.
>> >Freud's work was aimed at revealing these motives and making them
>> >accessible to conscious management. As Marx wrote in Capital I in 1867,
>> >referring to the the fact that whenever people exchange things they
>> >automatically equate the various kinds of labour expended on them: "Sie
>> >wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es" ("We are not aware of this, nevertheless
>> >we do it") (3 pages into the section on commodity fetishism, Pt 1, ch 1,
>> >sec 4). In the same way, whenever people interact, they equate new
>> >relationships to known relationships. If the equation is way off, the
>> >person making the mistaken estimate a) will be dysfunctional among other
>> >people, ie sick, and b) will not be aware of why bad things result, and c)
>> >will probably, with help, be able to find the key to his or her mistaken
>> >judgments in the character of the known relationships by which he or she is
>> >setting up these emotional equations.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >Hugh
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Linda and Douglas Rogers
>> Niagara Falls, Ontario
>> Canada
>> douglas.rogers-AT-sympatico.ca
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
Linda and Douglas Rogers
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Canada
douglas.rogers-AT-sympatico.ca
----------------------------------------------------