Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 22:27:09 +0200 (SAT)
From: Peter van Heusden <pvh-AT-leftside.wcape.school.za>
Subject: Re: M-FEM: Through a Glass Fuzzily


On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, David Stevens wrote:

> Rachel Carey-Harper shouted:
> > David Stevens wrote:
> >
> > >  I agree with everything Rachel says, except the
> > > talk about giving "priority to womens' vision
> > > and wisdom," which sound like fuzzyisms to me.
> >
> > For many thousands of years almost exclusive priority 
> > has been given to men's vision and wisdom.  The world
> > is in a mess in a wide variety of ways and I believe 
> > we have reached a point in human development where
> > ignoring and enslaving over half the population is
> > untenable,  this includes any world vision that 
> > included marxism.  While ultimately we need a balance
> > of male and female,  we have no hope to budge male
> > domination until there are a few places where female
> > vision and wisdom is given priority. Groups which 
> > describe themselves as feminist are the logical places
> > for this to occur.
> 
>  Is this part clear to anybody besides Rachel?
> 
>  I would especially ask Tamara Turner to help
> (if even she can) in translation.
> 
>  I still can't get more than approximately:
> "Whatever is meant by womens' vision and wisdom,
> it will (or should) be quite superior to whatever
> is meant by mens' vision and wisdom."

I'd read this rather differently. I'd read it as:

1) There is a distinction in vision in humans along sexual lines - men's
vision has different components to women's vision. The particular vision
that a person has is thus dependent on their gender.
2) At present one vision, men's, is priveledged over the other, women's.
3) Both visions have useful aspects, thus we need a balance of male and
female.
4) To achieve this balance, we need to promote women's vision to counter
the current over-promotion of men's vision (and similar subjugation of
women's vision).

Maybe I've got some steps of the argument wrong - Rachel, please correct
me if I have.

So I would not agree that Rachel's argument argues for the innate
'betterness' of women's vision and wisdom. Rachel's argument does,
however, seem to posit an elemental 'female' reality.

I would argue that Rachel's argument is materialist, but fundamentally
mechanical in nature. Much like other mechanical materialist thinkers of
the past, she constructs two groups in the world - a group who can change,
and a group who can be changed. The two groups in question are, for all
intents and purposes, taken for granted.

As a Marxist, this rings alarm bells for me. I'm expect carte-blanch to
critically analyse *anything* - if I get told something is outside of the
realm of analysis, I want a good reason. In my experience, the 'good
reason' for why I, as a man, have an inability to understand this argument
(the argument that what the world needs is more "women's vision") is
normally based on the argument that my consciousness is altered by some
factor - e.g. the environment of my upbringing, the structure of my brain,
or something like that. So far, so good - it is impossible for me to from
my position alone argue against such an argument, since if my
consciousness was altered by some aspect of my 'maleness', my argument
against the argument that my consciousness was altered would itself be
tainted by 'maleness'. Suffice it to say that I consider the fact that
women have also articulated an argument similar to the one which I
will articulate below evidence against the inherent 'maleness' of my
line of argument.

To test the hypothesis that there is a fundamental 'male vs female'
split on the issue of consciousness (and therefore there are separate
wisdoms, separate values, and thus the oppression of one value/wisdom
system by another), one would have to do a comparative analysis of the
values of women. If women do indeed have a separate wisdom, how do we
identify it, and what is its form? This problem is important given our
wide variety of experiences of the actions and opinions of women -
some of which are quoted by David below.

So, the question now becomes - what is the essential difference between
the consciousness of men and women? If we examine this question in depth,
however, we tend to find that other categories cloud the clarity of
distinction - race, social position, class, ethnicity, individual
inclination, etc. This leaves us with a dilemma - either we argue that
these other factors are examples of 'false consciousness' - that these
other factors intrude into the 'true' or 'fundamental' consciousness of
women, or we have to argue that women's consciousness is a result of more
than their gender - that it also includes other factors such as those
outlined above.

If we believe that there is a fundamental "women's identity" into which
these other factors intrude, then we end up with the strange position that
'sisterhood' exists as a basic and fundamentally important concept, 
binding all women together, but that the effects of 'false consciousness'
are such that women may act in total contradiction to this 'sisterhood'
(as the examples of Indira Ghandi or Margaret Thatcher illustrate). In
this circumstance, I would ask: "So how useful is this 'sisterhood' concept
anyway?". 

If we ask this question, then we allow the possibility of different
forms of organisation which may be as effective or more effective in
fighting women's oppression than a gender based 'sisterhood' would
be. In particular, we might need to identify a mechanism of world
organisation *different* from biological sex as a fundamental
mechanism and motor for the oppression of women. This seems to be the
issue that David is raising - as might be expected on a
Marxist-Feminist mailing list.

I would like to take forward this idea by dealing with some of the
points David raises.

> 
>  I guess one can't get any less fuzzy than that
> without imbuing the question with class content.

Indeed. :)

> 
>  Can we get define things more precisely?

Hopefully.

[snip]

>  The questions raised by Zeynep and others
> had important class character. Carey-Harper's
> own vision seems rather narcissistic to me,
> but maybe that's only because I missed the
> elaboration of her wisdom about perspectives
> which have "included marxism" [sic].
> 
>  The "safe supportive space" implemented by Ms.
> Carey-Harper seems rather to rely on selective
> quotation, academic dishonesty, and publication
> of private remarks.
>   
>  As an unintentional parody of crazed Bob Malecki,
> Rachel Carey-Harper objects to fraternal regards.
> 
>  After Malecki trots forth the tired troll that
> feminism implies anti-masculinity, Carey-Harper
> reads her agreement aloud from a dictionary.
> 
> 
> In Solidarity With Oppressed,
> - David Stevens

Carrol raises in another post the issue of the US workers' movement's
record with regards to gender and race, and points at the history of
problems in this field. It is on the basis of this that I'd like to
say that whilst I find David's signoff, 'In Solidarity with
Oppressed', a magnificently Marxist signoff, it remains to me in the
context of this discussion slightly disingeneus (sp?).  

It is not clear to me that Marxists have fully explored what it means
to be 'In Solidarity With Oppressed' - the mistakes of the past in
terms of the relationship of Marxists to the movements for the
liberation of women (and other oppressed groups) cannot simply be
written off. A clear historical understanding of the mistakes made in
the past, and a clear understanding of the lessons learnt in past and
present struggle is vital if Marxists are not to repeat those
mistakes.

<polemic mode on>

We need to not only understand the existence of women's oppression -
we also need to understand the detailed mechanisms and operations of
that oppression, as a step towards engaging in the struggle to end
that oppression. After all liberation does not come *after*
revolution, but rather as part and parcel of the same movement. Our
struggle towards the revolutionary overthrow of the whole rotten
system must build alongside it the struggle for the fullest liberation
of women. (After all, I'm sure no-one will be satisfied with soviets
where only men speak!) To do so requires an understanding of what is
concretely meant by a struggle for "women's liberation".

<polemic mode off>

In searching for such an understanding, I hope to be able to draw from
an understanding of debate which includes the conversation of ideas,
and not just their opposition.

Yours in the struggle for Socialist Revolution! :)

Peter

--
Peter van Heusden |    Computers Networks Reds Greens Justice Peace Beer Africa
pvh-AT-leftside.wcape.school.za | Support the SAMWU 50 litres campaign!