File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9707, message 99


Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 16:16:56 +1000
From: Rob Schaap <rws-AT-comserver.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: Re: M-I: Pure Philosophy vs. comm...Now: Do pure technical


Not a word on abortion - I'd promised ...

Carrol writes

>    I really was hoping this time around that no one considering
>himself a marxist would want to debate  the woman's absolute
>right (for any reason, including whimsy) to an abortion. You
>were indeed correct that your post would be contentious.

Absolute rights?  Whence come absolute rights?  Our transcendental,
essential and universal  humanity?  The timeless essence of our gender?
All pointing, I suggest, to an abstracted, and therefore decontextualised,
and therefore ahistorical representation of human being.  I've tried to
make such a case concerning humanity as a whole on this list (humans as
essentially, timelessly, universally, and transcendentally labouring,
social beings with needs to be recognised and to fulfill the self in terms
of differential creative, intellectual and social possibilities).  Even
that modest claim, which I thought implicit (and often explicit) in the
young Marx's writings, and which I thought necessary to the Marxian project
and concomitant political rhetoric, were taken to task on this list.  And
in ways that I have found difficult to contest without leaving myself open
to charges that I was being undialectical and crassly Kantian (ie.
pre-Marxist).

In the example I was discussing, clinicians are worth mentioning because
they too feel the brunt of the RTL's thuggery.  If you take a second look,
you'll see the clinician is mentioned twice, and both times with respect to
how the RTLs perceive (incorrectly) and act upon (unfairly) them.  I do not
suggest the clinician is anything more than a technical worker.  That
status alone demands that their interests be considered in our politics.

>    Now: It is 11:55 p.m. here in central Illinois, and I am thinking
>of making myself a strawberry sundae before going to bed. The two
>containers I usually use for that purpose are in the dishwasher,
>and it is not run. So (assuming I decide to go ahead), should
>I wash one of those containers by hand or should I use some
>other dish in the cupboard?

>    Is that a purely technical, one might say whimsical, question?
>I see a woman's decision to abort as belonging to the same category.
>It is not a decision she should be cajoled or propagandized into
>taking seriously. It is evil to claim that abortion constitutes
>an ethical choice.

Why is it evil?  It is something that happens.  So it is something that
happens in a historical context.  So that context conditions the
possibility and the quality of the act (the motivation, for instance, upon
which I chose to speculate by way of what I thought might be deemed a
marxian analysis of sorts).  Confining my point purely to the level of
philosophy (ie. definitely not to suggest any other link with the issue
that has angered you), having a strawberry sundae where and when you are is
distinguishable from having one in a Zairean refugee camp, whilst in the
company of a starving child, isn't it?

>To repeat Lisa again, "In a jar, daddio, in
>a jar." There will be no end to the uses to which the bourgeosie
>put the issue of abortion until overwhelming numbers of people
>simply laugh at any challenge to a woman's right, on a whim or
>for any other reason, to an abortion.

Just because a considered attitude is open to appropriation by an
opportunistic bourgeoisie, one does not have to jettison the idea.  Most of
Marxism lends itself to mischievously selective interpretations and
representations within our alienated, hegemonised milieu.  But we are still
Marxists (well, perhaps you are, if you no longer count me among you).

>    Neither is it her "clinician's" business; his/her business
>is to perform the abortion skillfully if the woman requests it,
>with not hems or haws or raised eyebrows. When I go to the barber,
>he does not debate with me whether it is a good idea to have my
>hair cut. He cuts it. Your reference to the woman *and* her
>clinician is as offensive as it would be to say, "Carrol's de-
>cision to have a haircut should be made in consultation with
>his barber." Fuck that.

I actually have no idea how what hair I have left might look - so I ask for
technical advice from someone who is, after all, a trained and experienced
technical worker.  This advice is for me to take or leave.  But, as I say,
I hadn't implied in my post that the clinician had even this role.

>I consider it offensive.

I'd apologise if there was a way I could have said something important to
me without offending you.  There wasn't.  So I can't apologise with any
sincerity.  Which is a pity because I don't like to offend people I admire.
I may be wrong in what I've said.  If so, I assure you I shall as readily
and explicitly publicise my change of mind as Andy has been.  I have,
however, not yet changed my mind.

If people feel I need putting right on the issue, and if the issue has been
a problem on this list before - then please feel free to contact me
privately.  I admit I've not thought, consulted and read as much about this
as perhaps I might.

Regards to all,
Rob.





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005