Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 04:05:44 -0500 From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Sociobiology Charles wrote and quotes Marx: > Yoshie, > Is Marx a sociobiologist in the following ? > > << The direct natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman, . In this natural species-relationship, man's relationship to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature - his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship on can therefore judge man's whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, , as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural r relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence - the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural essence -the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man's need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need - the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being (Emphasis in original, if it goes over e-mail. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) End of quote.>> I don't think it is necessary to agree with every single sentence written by Marx to be a historical materialist. He did not have many things to say about gender and oppressions based on it, period. Marx had even less to say to us about human sexuality in all its diversity and changes. He had nothing to say about the oppressions based on sexual identities and practices, I believe. To the extent that Marx regarded gender relations as "natural," his views on them do not illuminate much from the point of view of those who are like me feminist, marxist, and post-Foucauldian at the same time. At least Marx in the above passage has a virtue of not bringing in animals to argue for his view of relations between men and women, sexuality and procreation, etc. as Boddhi and Mark have, however. That makes Marx, in this passage, at least superior to them. Marx does not say silly things such as 'making sex between men and women a basis for unity across the gender divide,' as Chales B has argued. That makes Marx superior to Charles as well. If disagreeing with Marx on sex, gender, & sexuality makes one non-Marxist in your view, so be it. I don't consider you to be a final arbiter in this respect. I guess Chales B has not evolved far away from the views of women held by a man of the 19th century Europe. Yoshie --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005