Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:53:49 -0600
Subject:  Re: Group or individual -Reply


Aha!  We may have arrived at the crux of the matter.  
I think it seems strange to question things that are "second nature",
because those things are held deeply, unconsciously even, as
assumptions, as received wisdom that is so "obviously" true that it
is unquestioned.  

Adam, you are _defining_ human society as "collective production and
reproduction" and you seem happy to leave it at that, while I want to
take that apart and look inside, to see exactly how and why people do
various things, why they even form into a group at all.  

People never lose their material biological separateness as actual
reproducers.  When you father a child, you do not [only] reproduce
"society" you are propagating copies of _your own_ genes, and
possibly your own ideas.

To invoke "the group" as explanatory or determinative, or as if it
_has_ a point of view of its own, seems quite mysterious to me.  To
call humans "social animals" is also not explanatory to me, I need it
taken apart and rigorously defendable, maybe even with evidence.

I'm no sociologist.  I'm not sure I know just what is the rationale
for understanding everything in terms of groups, and I'm curious to
find out.  I know I don't accept an _evolutionary_ explanation on the
basis of groups, it is impossibly contradictory.

Regards,
Lisa

***
Lisa:
> Let's work on not talking past each other.  It's tricky when we
have
> totally different trainings / world views / or something.

Adam:
I'll try.
But this conversation seems strange :

>>> Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>  4/10/96, 03:56am >>>
I just think this is obvious - women look after children.
So men tended to specialise in hunting, women in things which fitted
in better with child care. This specialisation means that women who
don't happen to be suckling an infant at that precise moment still
don't go hunting.

Lisa: Why do women look after children, aside from nursing?  Why
would speicalisation be lifelong, no matter what the circumstances?

Adam:
It seems strange because it is asking me to explain things which seem
second nature to a Marxist looking at these things. Human society
means division and specialisation of Labour, in order to produce and
reproduce collectively. [snip]

One of the earliest divisions and specialisations involved women
specialising in reproduction and those aspects of production which
fitted in with reproduction. [snip]

But from the point of view of the group, it would be more efficient
for her to pass on and use her specialised knowledge.
Obviously, as they say.




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---