Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:52:06 -0700 From: Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers-AT-state.ut.us> Subject: subjectivity, social totality, multiplicity [was Negri, I think I take, and appreciate Jukka's anti-economistic point, perhaps you are talking about the 'social totality.' I don't know Guattari / Negri, and the quotes posted look unnecessarily jargon-laden and convoluted to me, but of course everything doesn't simple reduce to socioeconomism, I agree with that idea. At the same time, I'd rather not speak of 'another side' or 'ideal' to be included, because I am wary of dualism and polarity. Everything is combined in a much more subtle, complex, multiple, inseparable way, which is nonetheless amenable to understanding and analytical dissection. This all seems to relate to some of my current readings/thinkings. This week I'm reading some about psychoanalysis, from an anti-capital/patriarchy revolutionary point of view. Some authors speak of a devision of 'material' from 'non-material' aspects of theory and reality, so that psychological things are non-material. I disagree. Reasonable theories of psychological development are all about the ways that material circumstances interact with a responding/active psyche. This is we are shaped by / adapt to our situations. Those material circumstances include the exact behaviors of parents, in terms of care-giving, which parent does it [if any], every attitude of dis/approval, reward and punishment, that is meted out to everything one does, including facial expressions, etc. Also, which parent has economic power, who 'works'/ makes money and what significance do people place on that within the family, what kind of hierarchy and justification of domination takes place, all these things have _profound_ effects on developing attitudes, assumptions about the world and the way things are or should or must be, ideologies. The things that people think, imagine and desire are shaped by these processes, so there is no way to separate 'socio-economic causes' and 'ideal'/ mental causes of new 'subjectivities.' I don't think I'm contradicting Jukka, really, but expanding on the point of anti-economistic or anti-'mechanistic' thought, in a way that relates to subjectivity/socialization. But none of it is 'ideal', to me, not at all non-material. Does this make sense to you, Jukka? Or anybody? Lisa >>> J Laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi> 2/15/96, 01:04pm >>> [snip] I understood that the second factor (socialization) behind new subjectivities has been articulated earlier in Guattari-Negri book: that new forms of subjectivity (including socio-cultural perception and the like 'cognitive' aspects) have been partly caused by changes in families and their structures (on the one hand, more both parents working, on the other more single parent families), partly by developments in 'media' - films and records, radio and television & al. Of course there's much more to this but that should do this time. Combine that to changes in organization of work and you'll get picture slightly different to that of early 20th century fordist world of wage labour. [snip] And somehow that seems to be connected to the fact that people see new political and other oppurtunities in areas where 'trad. politics' haven't reached its grasp. Phenomenologist, perhaps, would say that our 'life worlds' have (a) changed, and (b) multiplied [snip] [snip] it isn't enough to chase socio-economic causes to several new phenomena (including those mentioned by G-N). The other dimension should be considered too - shall we call it 'ideal' or something like that? That's because what people think, imagine, want, lust etc. counts too. It has to be included in the whole picture. Otherwise our view remains kind of 'mechanistic' or one-sided. --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005