Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby kelley » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:52 pm

Franco Berardi & Geert Lovink: A call to the Army of Love and to the Army of Software
Posted: October 12, 2011 at 6:18 pm

October 2011. The fight opposing financial dictatorship is erupting.

The so-called ‘financial markets’ and their cynical services are destroying the very foundations of social civilization. The legacy of the postwar compromise between the working class and progressive bourgeoisie has all but disappeared. Neoliberal policies are cutting back education and the public health system and is cancelling the right to a salary and a pension. The outcome will be impoverishment of large parts of the population, a growing precarity of labor conditions (freelance, short-term contracts, periods of unemployment) and daily humiliation of workers. The yet to be seen effect of the financial crisis will be violence, as people conjure up scapegoats in order to vent their rage. Ethnic cleansing, civil war, obliteration of democracy. This is a system we call financial Nazism: FINAZISM.

Right now people are fighting back in many places, and in many ways. Occupy Wall Street inspired a mass mobilization in New York that is extending across the USA every day. In Greece workers and students are squatting Syntagma square and protesting against the blackmail by the European Central Bank, which is devastating the country. Cairo, Madrid, Tel Aviv, the list of the ‘movements of the squares’ is proliferating. On October 15 cities across the globe will amass with people protesting against the systemic robbery.

Will our demonstrations and occupations stop the Finazist machine? They will not. Resistance will not resist, and our fight will not stop the legal crimes. Let’s be frank, we will not persuade our enemies to end their predatory attacks (‘let’s make even more profit from the next downfall’) for the simple reason that our enemies are not human beings. They are machines. Yes, human beings – corporate managers, stock owners, traders – are cashing the money that we are losing, and prey upon resources that workers produce. Politicians sign laws that deliver the lives of millions of people to the Almighty God of the Market.

Bankers and investors are not the real decision makers, they are participants in an economy of gestural confusion. The real process of predatory power has become automated. The transfer of resources and wealth from those who produce to those who do nothing except oversee the abstract patterns of financial transactions is embedded in the machine, in the software that governs the machine. Forget about governments and party politics. Those puppets who pretend to be leaders are talking nonsense. The paternalistic options they offer around ‘austerity measures’ underscore a rampant cynicism internal to party politics: they all know they lost the power to model finance capitalism years ago. Needless to say, the political class are anxious to perform the act of control and sacrifice social resources of the future in the form of budget cuts in order to ‘satisfy the markets’. Stop listening to them, stop voting for them, stop hoping and cursing them. They are just pimps, and politics is dead.

What should we do? Living with the Finazist violence, bending to the arrogance of algorithms, accepting growing exploitation and declining salaries? Nope. Let’s fight against Finazism because it is never too late. At the moment Finazism is winning for two reasons. First, because we have lost the pleasure of being together. Thirty years of precariousness and competition have destroyed social solidarity. Media virtualization has destroyed the empathy among bodies, the pleasure of touching each other, and the pleasure of living in urban spaces. We have lost the pleasure of love, because too much time is devoted to work and virtual exchange. The large army of lovers have to wake up. Second, because our intelligence has been submitted to algorithmic power in exchange for a handful of shitty money and a virtual life. For a salary that is miserable when compared to the profits of the corporate bosses, a small army of ‘softwarists’ are accepting the task of destroying human dignity and justice. The small army of software programmers have to wake up.

There is only a way to awake the lover that is hidden in our paralyzed, frightened and frail virtualized bodies. There is only a way to awake the human being that is hidden in the miserable daily life of the softwarist: take to the streets and fight. Burning banks is useless, as real power is not in the physical buildings, but in the abstract connection between numbers, algorithms and information. But occupying banks is good as a starting point for the long-lasting process of dismantling and rewriting the techno-linguistic automatons enslaving all of us. This is the only politics that counts. Some say that the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks clear demands and an agenda. This remark is ridiculous. As in the case of all social movements the political backgrounds and motives are diverse, even diffuse and quite frequently contradictory. The occupation movement would not be better off with more realistic demands.

What is thrilling right now is the multiplicity of new connections and commitment. But what is even more exciting is finding ways that can set in motion the collective ‘exodus’ from the capitalist agony. Let’s not talk about the ‘sustainability’ of the movement. That’s boring. Everything is transient. These fast-burning events do not help us to overcome the daily depression. Occupying the squares and other public spaces is a way to respond to the short duration of the demonstrations and marches. We are here to stay.

We are not demanding a reform of the global financial system or the ECB. The return to national currencies of the past, as requested by the rightwing populists, will not make ordinary citizens less vulnerable to currency speculation. A return to state sovereignty is not the solution either, and many people already sense this. The demand for more ‘intervention’, control and oversight of markets is a hopeless gesture. The real issue is that humans are no longer in charge. We need to dismantle the machines themselves. This can be done in a very peaceful manner. Hack into their system, publish their crimes through Wikileaks-type initiatives and then delete their real-time trading killing networks for good.

Financial markets are all about the politics of speed and deterritorialization. But we know their architectures and vulnerabilities. The financial world has lost its legitimacy. There is no global consensus anymore that the ‘market’ is always right. And this is our chance to act. The movement has to respond at this level. Decommissioning and re-programming financial software is not the dream of a Luddite sabotaging the machine. ‘Market regulation’ will not do the job, only autonomy and the self-organization of software workers can dismantle the predatory algorithms and create self-empowering software for society.

The general intellect and the erotic social body have to meet on the streets and squares, and united they will break the Finazist chains.
kelley
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:46 am

Robot Allows High-Speed Testing of Chemicals

For the first time, toxic screening is underway for thousands of chemicals in daily use

By David Biello
Scientific American
October 13, 2011


Of the more than 80,000 chemicals used in the U.S., only
300 or so have ever undergone health and safety testing.

In fact, only five chemicals have ever been restricted
or banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). But now some 10,000 agricultural and industrial
chemicals-as well as food additives-will be screened for
toxicity for the first time
, with the help of a rapid-
fire testing robot.

Continues at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-testing
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:39 pm


Mayday

Since 1886 the first of May has been the international day of commemoration (except in the US) of the “Chicago Martyrs” (worker leaders condemned to the gallows in the context of the general strikes for the eight hour day in the US) and of expression of the demands and struggles of that great historical and strongly identitarian subject, the proletariat, inexorably united in a period of capitalism, industrial capitalism, to some modes of organization, the great strikes and the mass unions, and to some places of mobilization, the factories. But to the degree that capitalism has been changing its forms of exploitation in order to dodge the workers conflicts and reappropriate their demands, passing from industrial capitalism to fordism and, from this, to the present postfordist mode of production, this date has been losing meaning until it became of holiday (for some) and completely devoid of content for almost everyone.

Because today that monolithic antagonistic subject has been replaced by a diffuse multiplicity of singularities that some dare to call the precariat. In the year 2001, a Milanese colelletive of precarious of the large service sector chains, the Chainworkers (http://www.chainworkers.org), issued a call for May first what was baptized the Mayday Parade. Its protagonists were atypical workers, remunerated and non-remunerated, with and without papers: these professionals of geographic and vital flights, fixers of temporality, experts in metamorphis who, linked by multiplicity, sought, in the difficult times of existential precarization, to celebrate and visibilize our struggles and dreams. The initiative caught on and was repeated year after year with increasing numbers and increasing expressiveness. Three years later, it was put on in the city of Barcelona as well, and this year anticipates these Maydays in no less than 16 cities European cities (see http://www.euromayday.org).

The Mayday Parade constitutes a means of visibilization of the new forms of rebellion, a moment of encounter for the movements, and practices of forms of self-organized politicization (social centers, rank-and-file unions, immigrant collectives, feminists, ecologists, hackers), a space of expression of its forms of communication (the parade as an expression of pride inherited from the movements of sexual liberation, but also all the media-activist artillery developed around the global movement against the summits of the powerful of the world) and a collective cry for rights lost (housing, health, education) or new ones (free money, universal citizenship), which day to day and from each situated form we try to begin and to construct from below


Excerpted from:

Precarias a la Deriva, “Precarious Lexicon”


April, 2005 [Link]

.
Last edited by American Dream on Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:39 pm

“Preguntas para Precarias”

Precarias a la Deriva

[Link]



How do (if at all) strains of theory (the Situationist theory of the derive, the work of Negri and Hardt) inform the work of Precarias?

Obviously, we’ve read a few things. But this doesn’t mean that we’re reading theoretical work and then looking for ways to put it into action: quite the contrary. We found ourselves in a certain situation and began to look for ways to understand it and intervene in it, and to the extent that other thinkers can provide us with tools or inspiration, we look to them. Mustn’t forget that any theory worth its salt is written as a tool for action in a specific context and moment. As for the influence of particular strains, I’d say we’re pretty eclectic: whatever seems useful. A lot of feminists, some operisti, some urban studies and an ongoing dialog with a number of other groups working on ‘activist research’ (like Situaciones in Buenos Aires). I don’t know if you can get your hands on the book Nociones Comunes but in the introduction the editor (Marta Malo, one of the Precarias girls) writes a very nice genealogy of influences; maybe I can get you a copy (in spanish, haven’t translated it yet)

Has Precarias encountered resistance? Has there been resistance from trade unions or the government?

Resistance is more subtle than all that. Do we experience direct repression or persecution as a group, for our ideas or activities? No: what for? We’re just a bunch of girls walking around asking questions.

But this doesn’t mean that there aren’t innumerable obstacles set by the state, which are not aimed at us personally but which nevertheless effect us both personally and as a working group:

- The social center we worked out of (illegally squatted) was evicted last March, which has forced us to spend really this whole year struggling to build a new space (http://www.sindominio.net/karakola), eating a huge amount of time and energy.

- Migration law continues to be what it is, every day more ferocious all over Europe (despite the recent special regularization process in Spain), with active racial profiling on the part of the police. This means that some of us are permanent suspects, have limited mobility, have to work under the table, etc.

- The academic sphere in which some of us work is often very resistant to activist postures, and some have seen themselves marginalized in hiring processes, etc. because of their insistance on the continuity of theory and action. And, more simply, because the academic economy of individual renown resents time dedicated to collective projects and processes

- The city government of Madrid is on a campaign to eliminate street prostitution (the only realm of sex work which sometimes lends itself to autonomous work) and is making life very difficult for women in this sector

- Our book and video, which are published under a Creative Commons license (copyleft, free distribution) keep running into problems: most journals and TV programs are legally set up to work with proprietary content and don’t know what to do with our stuff

- Etc etc etc.

And also resistance in a thousand little, less intentional ways, yes: our precarious situation (of work, housing, care, migration, health) continues, and this has obvious consequences for our ability (individual and collective) to dedicate ourselves to this work, this kind of project. Nobody needs to persecute us specifically, it’s a war of attrition: its clear that most autonomous movements and projects simply wear themselves out just trying to find time and resources and optimism to keep themselves going.

How (if at all) does Precarias see itself situated in the Spanish tradition of non-capitalist organizing?

More than seeing ourselves situated in this tradition I think we just effectively are in the midst of it. I mean, we’ve never really dedicated much effort to thinking through that genealogy and we’ve found that most of the contemporary groups which are committed to a historic communist or anarchist stance are not very useful when it comes to thinking about the present. But of course one is infused by one’s environment and the kind of language which works here is different than the language which might work in the US, for example, largely because the legacy of anti-capitalist organizing to which you refer is still alive, at least in memory, in a way it really isn’t in the US. In recent years this legacy has semi-successfully reinvented itself in the context of anti-globalization and anti-war movements. As for our personal trajectories, some of us come out of the squatting movement (with its anarchist heritage, its critique of the social-democrat governments, its strong links to Italy and Germany), others out of different varieties of feminist organizing, anti-racist groups, unions, student movements, leftist groups in other countries, etc. Quite diverse.

Are you aware of any groups focusing on precarity outside of Europe?


Yes, lots. Europe with its historic welfare states (organized labor, public services) has become precarious more slowly than in other places like the US and Latin America, so the need to self-organize for survival has been earlier and more acute elsewhere. Therefore I’d say there are a lot more precarious-self-organizing experiences outside of Europe, and that these are in general much more ambitious and effective. But in general these movements outside of Europe are using different vocabularies to describe what they’re doing, they’re not talking about precarity as such, and they’re certainly not citing Negri and company. In the US, the movement of the Workers Centers has been a huge inspiration, as have the campaigns against Walmart, domestic worker organizations, various tenants movements, care cooperatives, neighborhood and ethnic groups and other often totally informal or spontaneous grassroots organizations. Uncomfortable as it may be, a lot of what some churches are doing in poor areas is similar too.

In Latin America the panorama is again very different. I’d say all the incredible experiences of the piqueteros and barter-economies in Argentina are totally paradigmatic, the MST in Brazil and some other campesino movements, squatter neighborhoods outside Quito, popular education in the favelas; of course in each place and moment people mobilize around the issues, the discourses and the mechanisms that work for them there: in societies in which there has never been a 36 hour industrial work-week and a welfare system it would be simply pretentious to make this a principle point of reference, but you can certainly still talk about a sustained and increasing insecurity re: access to material and immaterial resources fundamental for the full development of the life of a subject, a permanent threat or blackmail. And since the imaginary for collective organizing is so much more alive in Latin America than in Europe or the US, the possibility really emerges for massive mobilizations, a whole different order of magnitude.

My own personal field of interest (besides the here-and-now of daily life in Madrid) is the way a lot of religious organizations are stepping in to fill this void. In Morrocco or Lebanon for example the only organizations (both large-scale and spontaneous) which fill the void of social fabric/material resources/justice discourse are the Islamic ones.

Of course all of these parallels are approximate: the fact that they work on similar problems doesn’t mean that they share similar strategies or analyses. But it seems important to keep eyes open and not exaggerate the importance nor the singularity of what we’re doing in Europe just because Europe likes to be at the center of things.

What are the commonalities that you have encountered across class for precarious workers? How can a computer programmer and a sex worker struggle side by side?

That’s the big question. We’ve written a lot about this so instead of rehashing it all here I think I’ll just refer you to our work (http://www.sindominio.net/karakola/precarias.htm ) but I’ll add that none of it is clear nor easy: we tentatively attempt to create or percieve common places but it’s a constant effort and negotiation. And don’t be misled into thinking we’ve been able to do it. We’re a little group doing a little work, unfortunately we are very very far from mobilizing anything major. What is most difficult, in the end, is not so much the across class problem but the struggle problem: Where do you struggle? Against whom? For what? While we have been able to find a lot of shared concerns and characteristics despite our very different situations, when you don’t have a common employer the nature of the struggle becomes pretty abstract, pretty fragmentary. In the last year or two we’ve created a little mechanism so that whenever any one has a specific little conflict (gets fired, gets harrassed, gets evicted, etc) we can all come together to support her and put together some kind of action. This has been interesting but is still so limited. Our next experiment (the first open meeting is today!) is one we’ve been thinking about for a long time now: a resource center we hope will improve our ability to collectivize conflicts and invent new mechanisms to survive them.

A great many people that I worked with in my experiences as a temporary worker had recently been released from prisons. How does (if at all) the prison system serve to keep people in and transfer people into precarious positions?

I think that’s a really good observation, and probably ground for a lot more research. Especially in the US where the prison system is so incredibly enormous. Here it doesn’t have nearly the same presence, though it does to some extent have the same kinds of racial bias – most prisoners are Roma or migrants – and a similar effect of producing a stigmatized and permanently precarious layer of society. Honestly we haven’t really thought about this at all in Precarias – it hasn’t come up directly – though one of us has written a fair amount about the prison system, women in prison, prison drug-treatment programs, etc. Maybe if you’re going to work on this (and you want some Spanish/European context) you should get in touch with her, she could at least refer you to others working on the question.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:38 am

Cross-posted to the Tantra-Induced Delusional Syndrome ("TIDS") thread:

http://colonialinscriptions.wordpress.com/






Diane Bell, on ‘Desperately Seeking Redemption’

Diane Bell discusses Marlo Morgan and Lynn V. Andrews, with obvious implications for others, placing it within the context of American Indian Movement (AIM) who had ‘protested, picketed, and passed resolutions condemning those individuals and institutions that packaged Indian sweat lodges, vision quests, shamanic healing, and sun dances for the spiritually hungry’. On Morgan and Andrews, Bell writes:

Morgan’s and Andrews’s readers often tell me that these books offer a vision of a world in which all life forms coexist in physical and spiritual harmony; where one person’s journey can undo centuries of abuse; where women are wise; where, despite differences in language, history, geography, economic status, and personal skills, we are all one. Here is community, meaning, belonging–all the,connectedness for which the self-absorbed, postindustrial, fragmented individual yearns. I certainly agree that we should be open to wisdom from a range of sources, but must we suspend all critical faculties in the process? It matters that the beliefs and practices of Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have been put through a cultural blender. It matters that the stories of those engaged in ongoing struggles for their very lives are marginalized, and that these representations of indigenous peoples are romantic and ahistorical. Morgan and Andrews shroud their “native teachers” in mystery while telling us that they hold the keys to true and authentic ways of knowing.

Marketers of neo-shamanic books and workshops claim that indigenous wisdom is part of our common human heritage. By sharing such knowledge, the argument goes, together we can save the planet. But is this sharing or a further appropriation? There is a bitter irony in turning to indigenous peoples to solve problems of affluent urbanites. In the midst of the wealth of first-world nations, most native peoples endure appalling health problems, underemployment, and grinding poverty. A philosophy of reverence for the earth rings hollow in the reality of toxic waste dumps and nuclear testing on native lands. As Ines Talamantez, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says: “If the impulse is for respect and sharing, then come stand with us in our struggles for religious freedoms and the return of skeletal remains and against hydroelectric dams and logging roads.”


Bell, Diane. “Desperately seeking redemption.” Natural History Mar. 1997







ConFest: A thesis in defence of…whatever.

Image


Graham St John has a Ph.D. thesis published on the ConFest website entitled Alternative Cultural Heterotopia: ConFest as Australia’s Marginal Centre. In his apologia for appropriation at ConFest, he writes for his chapter on ‘Indigeneity and Appropriation’ about the goings on in the “marginal centre”:

A white male Toc III participant posed a curious sight. With his body covered in mud, didjeridu painted in a black, yellow and red pattern, and penis decorated in matching hues, he emblematised the sensuous simulation of, and experimentation with, primitivity discovered on site. Here, participants manipulate a repertoire of symbolism (paint, musical instruments, clothing, dance styles, architecture) assuming aspects of the valorised primitive, seeking indigeneity.11 While workshops like ‘Koori astronomy’ and ‘intercultural sharing’ – involving the construction of multi-totemic murals – appeared at Toc III (in Koori Culture), body decorations using ochre (hence the experience of getting ‘ochred’) and dot painting technique have become ephemeral recently. And, like primitive antennae seen on backpackers commuting to and from ConFest, the popularity of the didjeridu has escalated. Non-indigenous Australians (usually males but increasingly females also) desire to create the vibrating drone to which Aborigines have always attributed sacred significance, a trend that is underscored by the popularity of workshops on ‘how to play didjeridu’ and ‘didge healing’,12 and stalls like ‘Heartland Didgeridoo’ which, at Toc III, was signposted:

It’s time for Aboriginal spirit to rise in us all …The didge is the sound of Mother Earth and is bringing forth the heart spirit, from the depths of our land. The Didge Spirit will guide us if we put aside our ego and be humble … The vibrating sound of the didge is stirring for it reflects the wonderful sound of creation. Even the earth rotating as taped from outer space sounds like a didgeridoo … By using it in creative ritual in day to day life and going into meditative, reflective and feeling spaces it becomes our soul companion helping open and clear the doorway to our spirit.

In sympathy with such logic, the didjeridu, a chief ritual tool used in a fire walk at Toc IV, was played over the bare feet of prospective coal walkers with the purpose of guiding their journey. Such discourse and practice is consistent with essentialising patterns like those located in contemporary world music where the instrument is often perceived to resonate Mother Earth (Neuenfeldt 1994), and whose originators are imagined to be so ‘in-touch’ with their natural environment that they themselves are Nature. However, as a conduit between the sacred and profane (1994:93), the didjeridu’s specified use in nascent performances (‘didge healing’ and the Toc IV fire walk) delivers us upon fresher ground.

For the disenchanted of Euro-origin, the world’s aboriginal peoples have become the embodiment of the sacred. Indigenes are mobilised to serve varying purposes in different orbits. They are ‘fetishised’ at the global level (Beckett 1994); discursive mediators for the national imaginary (Lattas 1990; Hamilton 1990); and models for developing ‘indigenous selves’ (Mulcock 1997a).

[C.I. bold emphasis]

ConFest attendees wish to embody Aboriginal peoples, they wish to be a part of something that they perceive to be “primitive”, “primordial” and “down to earth”. They want to be “innocent”. They want body decorations, dot painting and “did healing” and fire walking. They want mud and meditation, “mother earth” and a “didj spirit”, ritual and resonance.

What they don’t want is beyond measure.

Go on, crank this one:



Andrea Smith on New Age movements and Survival

Some sanity from Andrea James:

These practices also promote the subordination of Indian women to white women. Many white “feminists” tell us how greedy we are when we don’t share our spirituality, and that we have to tell them everything they want to know because prophesies say we must. Apparently, it is our burden to service white women’s needs rather than to spend time organizing within our own communities.

The New Age movement completely trivializes the oppression that we, as Indian women face: that Indian women are forcibly sterilized and are tested with unsafe drugs such as Depo-Provera; that we have a life expectancy of forty seven years; that we generally live below poverty level and face a seventy-five percent unemployment rate. No, ignoring our realities, the New Age movement sees Indian women as cool and spiritual and therefore, available to teach white women to be cool and spiritual.

This trivialization of our oppression is compounded by the fact that, nowadays, anyone can be Indian if she wants to be. All that is required is that a white woman be Indian in a former life or that she take part in a sweat lodge or be mentored by a “medicine woman” or read a “how to” book.

Since, according to this theory, anyone can now be “Indian,” the term “Indian” no longer refers only to those groups of people who have survived five hundred years of colonization and genocide. This phenomenon furthers the goal of white supremists to abrogate treaty rights and to take away what little we have left by promoting the idea that some Indians need to have their land base protected, but even more Indians [those that are really white] have plenty of land. According to this logic, “Indians” as a whole do not need treaty rights. When everyone becomes “Indian” it is easy to lose sight of the specificity of oppression faced by those who are Indian in this life. It is no wonder we have such a difficult time getting non-Indians to support our struggles when the New Age movement has completely disguised our oppression.

A. Smith, ‘For All Those Who Were Indian in a former life’, in C. J. Adams (ed.), Ecofeminism and the sacred, New York, 1993
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:51 am

Cross-posted to the Tantra-Induced Delusional Syndrome ("TIDS") thread:

ASIAN POP

Exotic, Erotic Asia

The West's long fascination with sex from the East has evolved and stayed the same


by Vera H-C Chan, SF Gate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ernsex.DTL

Image


The West has long been fascinated with Eastern sexuality. Throughout its encounters, it has struggled with these passions, from indulging them in secrecy and condemning them in public to embracing them openly.

Nowadays, sex appears to be everywhere, and much of it seems to be solicited from the East: The traveling exhibit "Geisha: Beyond the Painted Smile" wraps up its summer run Sept. 26 at the Asian Art Museum. An international dream team of actors, including Michelle Yeoh, Ken Watanabe and Zhang Ziyi, begins filming "Memoirs of a Geisha," seven years after the book camped out for nearly 50 weeks on The New York Times' best-seller list. The newly published "The Japanese Art of Sex: How to Tease, Seduce and Please the Samurai in Your Bedroom" made the independent booksellers' Book Sense pick list for September, and sent its author touring Borders Books & Music stores across America.

This manual, which recounts geisha and courtesan history and includes explicit tips such as collecting "female essence" in a sake cup, adds to a library of Eastern-oriented sex how-tos Americans have been building in the last decade: sexuality according to the Kama Sutra, Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese Taoism and Tantric philosophy (of which Sting has been a public proponent).

But as we've become more socially conscious and sexually open, we now demand sexual knowledge from authentic sources; we crave enlightenment with our titillation. More than wham-bam, we also want the spiritual package the East has seemingly been privy to for centuries.

Yet a Western history of intolerance and exoticization of the East has sometimes interfered with not only gathering the actual facts but also developing the cultural understanding needed for true sexual enlightenment. Asia, too, has been a complicit partner in feeding our fantasies by giving us sly peeks into its own practices and, when we don't understand but demand more, manufacturing new ones.

The shifting balance of power between West and East has helped strip away fantastic sexual visions and replace them with truer images. Still, even as we reach out, old perceptions pop up in new ways, from sexual stereotyping to sex-trade myths. A look at our intertwined pasts reveals how much our relationship has changed, and, simultaneously, how it's also stayed the same.

Asia versus the Orient

Twenty-five years ago, cultural historian Edward Said propounded a theory that the Orient is little more than a construct of what the West is not, what he described famously as the "Other." That mysterious, exotic world bundled together cultures as geographically distant and diverse as Turkey and Japan, but ancient glories made the Orient seem at once alluring and past its prime, especially compared to the rational virility of the New World.

In many ways, the East was perceived as the female counterpart to the masculine West, both an object to covet and a subject of conquest. Fantasy reflected itself in sumptuous erotic paintings such as John Singer Sargent's luscious harem-girl paintings, onstage with Puccini's "Madama Butterfly" and in ornate japonaiserie and chinoiserie in goods and architecture.

Yet, even back when Said laid out his argument, the West's perception of the East was evolving quickly. "Historically speaking, attitudes about Asian sexuality have changed quite a bit," says Amy Sueyoshi, an assistant professor of ethnic studies and human sexuality at San Francisco State University. "I think people are often short sighted, [viewing] stereotypes in the U.S. as being [the same] forever, which is not the case."

The Female East

In the West before World War II, the view of Asian women as beauties had been largely restricted to the Japanese -- likely a leftover from the 1700s, when Westerners visited Japan's government-regulated pleasure quarters. They depicted courtesans (prostitutes) and geisha ("persons of art" who provided musical and conversational entertainment) interchangeably in art, photographs and memoirs. Of course, some Japanese women contributed to the confusion, what with teahouse girls masquerading as geisha and real geisha having private affairs (often with married men, according to Liza Dalby, anthropologist and self-proclaimed first American geisha).

Fast forward to the 20th century: At home in the States, Chinese male immigrants, and, later, Japanese and Filipino ones, took on a "threatening sexuality" due to economic competition and overseas wars. At the same time, distant lifestyles once condemned as deviant became examples of diversity, an attitude change primed by anthropologists such as Margaret Mead. Her promotion of cultural relativism (all cultures, being equal, should be considered on their own merits) extended to detailing sexual freedoms in Samoa and New Guinea that shocked and beguiled 1930s America.

As Mead's ethnographies painted pictures of island girls engaging in premarital casual sex, foreign wars introduced everyday Americans to the Far East (and, later, Southeast Asia), and soldiers to hostesses, bar girls and prostitutes. This limited reality was echoed at home in films and books such as "South Pacific" (featuring island girls) and "The World of Suzie Wong" (focusing on a Hong Kong prostitute). Works like these also reflected the American missionary impulse to save these fallen women: Imagining them in need of rescue fit in nicely with the United States fashioning itself as a benevolent, racially diverse and nonimperialist nation.

As Washington, in its rush to becoming a world power, wooed noncommunist Asian nations as allies, "we can see that same logic operating in popular culture," says Christina Klein, author of "Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961." Stories and images emphasized "this idea of integration," from nonfiction travel tales to media coverage on white Americans adopting Asian kids to creative works like James Michener's "Hawaii." American literature and cinema showed how the happy resolution of interracial romance -- overt in "South Pacific" and implied in "The King and I" -- depended on tolerance.

"The need to renounce racism ... becomes kind of a mainstream view in the 1940s and 1950s, which has foreign-policy implications," explains Klein, an assistant professor of literature at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That notion peaked, pop-culture-wise, in the unprecedented all-Asian casting of "The Flower Drum Song," a tale of assimilation and romantic (and sexual) fulfillment: Besides rejecting yellowface, it displayed independent Asian women (albeit in the "How to Marry a Millionaire"/"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" vein of the time).

Following wars in Korea and Vietnam and, later, financial competition with Japan, Hollywood returned to Asian villains ("Black Rain," "Rising Sun") and distressed damsels ("Red Corner," "Showdown in Little Tokyo"). At the same time, demographics and the cultural marketplace were changing. Ethnic studies and civil rights movements demanded that Asian Americans be taken seriously. The growing import of Asian culture offered a wider array of images -- sexual and otherwise -- from which to choose that catered to or confronted preconceptions.

Embracing the Geisha

Among the archetypes that have benefited in the United States is the misunderstood geisha. The witty conversationalist who once enjoyed near pop-star fame had a tarnished reputation in the New World. Notes the introduction to the program book for the Asian Art Museum's exhibit about geisha, "Their role as entertainers and artists has been largely misperceived through the lens of Western culture." Adds author Leslie Downer in one of the essays, "Westerners fantasized the geisha as everything their Western sisters were not: 'exotic,' seductive, soft, submissive and -- amazingly -- sexually available."

The geisha deserved -- and the times demanded -- a makeover. "It is a very current hot topic that has been looked at the last 15 or 20 years in terms of anthropology," says Emily Sano, executive director of the Asian Art Museum.

This time, instead of sneaking lascivious peeks, Americans tried out becoming geisha. Dalby dressed as novice geisha Ichiguku during her Stanford graduate studies in the 1970s. Arthur Golden ushered enthralled readers into the world of a 20th-century geisha in his 1997 best-seller "Memoirs of a Geisha." (He also prompted Mineko Iwasaki, his book's inspiration, to write a retaliatory autobiography after she accused him of introducing sex where it didn't belong.) Even Madonna, ever the arbiter of pop sex, had a geisha phase, in between mehndis and Kabbalah studies.

"Japanese Sex" author Jina Bacarr calls the allure "geisha power." Usually sold into the profession and dependent on patronage, geisha nevertheless enjoyed freedoms unavailable to other Japanese women.

The geisha, says Bacarr, "still was her own businesswoman. She had the power to choose lovers. Japanese women's power is not on the surface. Everything in Japan, it's very subtle."

The "Geisha" exhibit also probes that subtlety by emphasizing the training and artistry involved in the profession: American patrons who don't understand the complex interplay of sexuality can relate, at least, to the business side. All this complexity imbues the geisha with a sort of feminine power in our estimation. Moreover, by entering her world, we also get a glimmer of just what it feels like to be the object of Western attention.

Same Outlook, Different Century?

The willingness to try role reversals speaks to a better understanding between cultures. Still, old stereotypes do have a way of getting dolling up in new enlightenment. Packaging philosophy with sex became hot starting with the '60s counterculture, with ad hoc slogans of free love and investigations into Indian mysticism. What the West once judged to be loose, perverse and weak, the East now held to express ancient wisdom that would fill the void in their own lives: same fantasy, different angle.

"Personally, I think a lot of the New Age stuff is completely Orientalist," Christina Klein observes. The end result converted Westerners from conqueror to pupil, but it "valorizes the idea of the East as having all this great wisdom ... but it maintains that absolute difference between East and West."

Seeking out manuals and toys from other cultures is, says San Francisco sexologist Dr. Carol Queen, "an attempt for a culture who's hidebound but pretty fascinated by [sex]. It's a way to reinvigorate and make us think differently about the role of sexuality. What's problematic about that, a lot of the cultural context gets peeled away."

She cites "The Yin-Yang Butterfly: Ancient Chinese Sexual Secrets for Western Lovers," a 1993 book exploring how sex had long been an erotic science in China. It probed the relationship of passion, health and well being by observing the emperor at work and even figuring out the five separate depths of the vagina and the various sensations therein. Some Westerners get that sex in the East means more than copulation; other folks, though, pull out early in the culture talk and get details bizarrely wrong, to boot. Queen recalls a recent panel dealing with cultural and class issues of sex in which a Japanese American woman related how she had been asked whether Asian women have different genital configurations.

Queen blames a restrained American sex-education system for the demand on any sex book, whether focusing on the Japanese, ancient Romans or porn stars. Without repressive attitudes here and elsewhere in the world, she says, "we would have a real understanding, as opposed to this marketed understanding of what are the sexual differences and similarities between cultures. That lack of understanding really allows exoticization to flower."

Guilt for our past ignorance also drives some attempts to redress perceived wrongs, such as Southeast Asian sex trafficking. However, says Dr. David Feingold, who oversees trafficking projects for UNESCO's Bangkok office, "the reality of the industry is often quite different from what's written about, or people's fantasies."

His PBS 2003 documentary, "Trading Women," addresses the many myths that continue to prevail: that Thai prostitution resulted from the Vietnam War, when it had in fact existed as a state-controlled activity from the 1600s until recently; that heartless parents sell their girls into the sex trade (many go voluntarily to the big city to make money, and some get trafficked along the way); and that sex tourism thrives by serving foreigners, particularly Westerners, when, actually, the industry, which peaked in the '80s, is on the decline and trafficked girls don't normally solicit Westerners.

Feingold attributes Western willingness to take the blame partly from the "Suzie Wong fantasy": saving the bar girl with the heart of gold.

Though sexual trafficking is a serious problem, he says, the major forms of child abuse in Southeast Asian are forced begging, or working on fishing boats (where there's a high mortality rate). "There's much less interest in addressing those [other] issues," Feingold says. "People get more excited about sexual trafficking. It's much sexier."

The Next Generation

As irksome as some lingering perceptions might be, whether the East as the idealized fount of sexual wisdom or a place of enslavement, they're fading slowly. New possibilities, some direct from Asia, are pushing aside or revamping some old images.

In the Asian-male arena, Sueyoshi points out that the old-school genre of kung fu films featured an asexual martial arts master (such as the ascetic Shaolin monk). Now, however, Jackie Chan and Jet Li star in American films and get hooked up with leading ladies of all races. Even from the old school, the most potent international sexual image that persists is that of Bruce Lee. His iconic posture -- bare chested, muscular and indifferently bleeding -- cut across class and cultural lines and continues to dominate, Elvis-like, in everything from posters to museum exhibits.

And the next generation is taking it all in. "The kids of today don't have the baggage" of carrying the weight of stereotypes such as Charlie Chan or Suzie Wong, Jina Bacarr says. "Their conception of Japan [for instance] is more from manga and the Japanese pop image." In today's truly global world, American youth accept Yu-Gi-Oh and Sony PlayStations as their own and get pop culture from the source. They're absorbing different aspects of Asia -- its economic prowess and creative flow -- before sexual stereotypes can register.

"It's access to self-representation," Christina Klein says. "It's access to producing popular culture, rather than being a figure of popular culture. With technological changes, the diasporic aspects of globalization make it possible to see Asian stuff directly, rather than always see Asia through a constructed American lens."

And, if the West still resists, consider the shifts in power that pushed the release in America of Zhang Yimou's 2002 "Hero," which features potent and powerful images of stars Jet Li, Donnie Yen and Maggie Cheung. According to a New York Times story, Chinese officials reportedly pressured Miramax to give that country's box office record breaker a wide American release. The studio pleaded empty marketing coffers, but Disney, building a theme park in Hong Kong, coughed up the money. In its first weekend, the subtitled flick pulled in $18 million.

The biggest sign of an attitude shift, however, may be among Asian Americans. "The Flower Drum Song," embraced at the time of its premiere but condemned in the '70s for perceived derogatory images, enjoyed a revival: Besides David Henry Hwang's update, which just concluded its Bay Area premiere, the 2002 San Francisco International Asian Film Festival featured appearances by original cast members and a sing-along screening. Lucy Liu, accused of perpetuating the dragon-lady stereotype on "Ally McBeal," vamped alongside Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz in "Charlie's Angels" and drew no fire (except for contributing to a bad sequel). Recently, "The Guru," a sexually oriented coming-to-America comedy, did a wicked send-up of American fascination with Indian mystic sexuality, and, in another movie, two dudes named Harold and Kumar poked fun at images of Asian-male sexuality during a burger quest.

Whether these events signal growing comfort among Asians in their own images -- and sexuality -- in a West that's shedding its preconceptions remains up for debate. The good thing is, nowadays, we have more to talk about.




Vera H-C Chan traces her pop-culture fascination with Asian cinema
to her childhood weekends in Boston Chinatown theaters. A former
features reporter and events editor at The Contra Costa Times, she
covers pop culture, lifestyle, travel and business for various Bay
Area publications.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:41 pm

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/9303

Anarchist Critique of Hard-Line, Authoritarian Manarchy Feminism

A Open Letter critiquing the use of the term "(man)archists" by Anarchist-feminists, and critiquing what is now called "manarchy feminism" (which originated out of Philadelphia, PA, USA), in which men within anarchist organizations are under attack more often than external foes to liberty and human freedom.


Image
Anarcha-Feminists Second Life Group Profile Image


I wanted to make some suggestions and give an opinion on your description of the anarcha-feminist group you made on Second Life, but wasn't sure if they would be received very well, but I might as well make them rather than remaining silent, else nothing can ever possibly change.

I strongly and vehemently disagree with the use of the term "(man)archist" in your group description, and the paradoxical image of female militia women from the Spanish Civil War (milicianas) in the profile for the group. I'll will give my reasons now: In her book "Free Women of Spain" ( http://www.amazon.com/Free-Women-Spain- ... 902593960/ ), writer Martha Ackelsberg pointed out that the women she interviewed in Spain who had been milicianas had been repulsed by modern day anarcha-feminists they met in recent times who had attitudes toward men that encouraged attacks against them over such things as talking a lot or using loud voices, not automatically giving women leadership of any institution (whether anarchist, syndicalist, or even the modern attempts at re-establishing Students for a Democratic Society/SDS) purely because they were women - and not because they proved they were competent at doing delegate work in anarchist and syndicalist and general progressive organization offices, and generally had the attitude and ideology that they had to shame, yell at, and "militantly beg" men to behave the way they wished, with no allowance for explanation or testimony or discussion from the anarchist men, and no regard for the men's feelings, state of mental health (which often has more to do with casual behavior, such as tone of voice or amount of talking - that man you think talks a lot because he is sexist may simply have a form of OCD. Those of us who have attended mental clinics have shared these problems with our sisters seeking treatment as well - trust me on this. In the world of mental illness we are all equally messed up regardless of gender or sexual preference). Manarchy feminists care little for the sensitive man, and if they can tear him to pieces and call him sexist and a rapist openly just for being a male, and make him even cry with no mercy if he is a sensitive type they see it as scoring points, and care nothing for this human being they have just potentially lost as an ally. That so many men are openly emotional and sensitive today more than any other time is utterly ignored by such hard-line authoritarian feminist women who call themselves anarchists.

The modern anarcha-feminists reportedly insulted and denounced the Mujeres Libres members alive today whom they met, women who during the Spanish Civil War had seen feminism as forwarded by their libertarian actions themselves: fighting and organizing against capitalism and the "free market" myth, and opposing the police, jails and state apparatus capital needs in order to exist (and which it creates - even those forms of capitalism claiming to be "libertarian" because they offer a few token gestures such as pot legalization), instead of doing what modern day manarchy feminist anarcha-feminists do: "going on strike" against all anarchist and progressive men and not permitting men to organise collectives or unions until they exhibited perfect politically correct behavior, and expecting men to suffer and be socially lowered like women have historically suffered - being abused and put down by anarcha-feminist women publicly, at meetings, and on electronic mailing-lists for the smallest things, such as talking a lot, eating meat, being interested in militaria/guns as a hobby, or speaking with a loud voice at a meeting, even if the same men did tireless work to promote feminism, read feminist books, and regularly demanded equal rights and equal pay for women in the workplace on a regular basis.

In various cases there are indeed men who harbor what are called sexist attitudes or behavior that they find immensely difficult to totally reject - this is especially difficult for men in the poor white, Latino, and black communities (as well as those in the American and British military) because they are constantly watched by their male friends who will beat them up if they exhibit any alleged "queer" behavior. In such cases, feminist women of courage and genius, who are true leaders, would understand that there are such things as tactical progress, where total acceptance of demands is sacrificed for some amount of tangible real-world success.

For example, there are some men who have contributed to Food Not Bombs who harbor what are called sexist attitudes by anarcha-feminists, yet they mostly keep them to themselves. The fact that these men cook good food and clean up and carried the equipment from the kitchens to the feeding places is regularly under-appreciated when such men are revealed to not be perfect models of politically correct "demasculinized men". It may in fact be that they are simply %100 heterosexual on the Kinsey scale, and may have no objections to real, tangible equality for women but will remain male heterosexuals regardless of what society they live in. If anarcha-feminism and its new incarnation as manarchy feminism demands "step back, so we can step up", instead of "step up together", then what possible benefit do men have for accepting, or listening to anarcha-feminists? And does the feminist women who says "who cares, they can go to hell" really expect mid-term or long-term political and social success and progress? Do they *really* believe in the libertarian ideas of *freedom* and *justice* and *equality* and *solidarity*?

Basically, while modern anarcha-feminists may take abstract inspiration from Mujeres Libres, the women of Mujeres Libres who were militianas in the CNT, FAI, as well as the socialist (POUM and UGT) and communist (before May of 1937 and the marxist/leninist authoritarian domination of the Popular Front) institutions and other Spanish militant union organizations did not hold the same values as modern day anarcha-feminists, especially of the manarchy feminist type. It is misleading to suggest a direct correlation between Spanish militianas, who allowed men to organize unions, etc, and attacked *specific* men for *specific* documentable and visible sexist behavior, and modern anarcha-feminists who do not allow anarchist and syndicalist meetings or any other progressive organizing to proceed until they have unquestioned control, and establish speech codes and perfect politically correct behavior reminiscent of maoist authoritarian feminist doctrine in which force, not consent, not inspiration, not setting examples, is used to get hollow and purely symbolic social progress (and which is quickly abandoned when the leninist commissars have left or been overthrown). What I am calling "manarchy feminists" are those who attack men for the subjective, not the objective, attack and abuse men for the emotional, the mystical, the symbolic, not the intellectual, physical and tangible) tend to reject ideas of logical positivism (that sexism comes from specific ideas, individuals, and social institutions) and reject ideals of habeas corpus (that the specific individual guilty of rape and sexual abuse is the one who must be called out - and instead "all men" are guilty for the individual action, all men must collectively suffer and be disenfranchised) and instead view the world in abstract symbolic metaphysical terms where generalizations carry more weight than actual established facts.

It would be much better that if your group unapologetically takes a position hostile to anarchist men purely for being men or purely for adopting some sexist behaviors because they grow up in modern culture and have little chance to see the benefits of non-sexist behavior to them when they are men who consciously choose to be sexist ...to (has anyone even considered actually trying to *convince* people, and let them decide on their own? Or does this idea have no place in anarchy today?) instead use modern anarcha-feminist imagery directly related to such groups, available here: http://www.anarcha.org/pictures.php

On the other hand, if you do feel a strong connection to Mujeres Libres, I suggest reading Martha Ackelsberg's book, and also reading articles such as this one: http://infoshop.org/library/Are_you_stu ... anarchy%22 which support anarcha-feminism but understand that if men (not as "men" but purely as human beings) have *nothing* positive to look forward to by being anarchists or syndicalists besides abuse, insults, shunning and shaming on the basis simply that they are men, and on the basis that sexism is defined as a nebulous, abstract, metaphysical, non-logical positivist and counter-scientific idea that can never be defeated unless men are reduced to emotional suffering, abuse, banishment, and "having their dicks cut off" (as the essay by a mentally ill woman, "The SCUM Manifesto" recommended) purely for being male, ignoring the fact that such may be queer, bisexual, mentally ill (especially suffering from depression, addiction, obsessive compulsive behavior, or attention-deficit disorder) and even identify with feminism themselves (regardless of in the past being banned from attending meetings of exclusive feminist groups, such as the Women's Action Coalition (WAC), and modern existing ones as well), Human beings who embrace feminism on their own regardless of gender because *they see it as right*, and because they suffer too in our society, and they are such human beings who abhor all social suffering of humanity, and not because they feel guilty, or must be expected to feel guilty or shamed.

Final comment: If anarcha-feminism takes a "hard line" and is a sort of reactionary and authoritarian force within the anarchist movement similar to the maoists and homophobic "the man is the leader of the family" black nationalists infiltrating (and some sadly leading) the Anarchist People of Color movement who see anarchism as a convenient label to clothe authoritarian revolutionary ideas and get "street cred" then what will become of anarchy? If people calling themselves "anarchist" get to control institutions using the label "anarchist" but harbor no interest in ideas such as setting examples and using direct action and real testimony and proof of suffering to *convince* people to become anarchists *because it is right and because it will benefit them*, not because they must be shamed and yelled at until they "get with the program", then the terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" themselves have no real meaning or value. If we are to, for example, reject Goldman, Bakunin, Korpotkin, Proudhon and the rest because they came from a more sexist, nationalist, and anti-semitic age, and if anarchism is not the alternative [to] (no, not the "conscience of") the statist left, then while individuals who are angry at the world because they have suffered, who see politics as a sort of point-scoring game as it is defined by the capitalist culture (how many men, or white people, etc. can be made to "suffer" and feel guilty and be excluded from organizations), then what is the point? Where will the activists come from who will want to be an anarchist or a feminist? Who will want to fight racism or sexism? Why be an anarchist for the label and not for the original libertarian idea?

Such hard-line people will win their little wars, but will lose the battle in the end, and anarchism will die. The nationalists claiming to be "against the state" but for homophobia and class stratification, the marxists, leninists and maoists who want better sounding labels to mislead and recruit people, the market-rule agorists or Rothbardians claiming the label "libertarian" because they want liberty only for the rich and those with property, the primitivists and crimethincers who reject organization or responsibility and embrace living in squalor and using blind violence for political goals, the Internet griefers and script kiddies, the sociopaths and criminals, and all the rest who constantly try to claim the label "anarchist" and "libertarian" will have their way, and we wont even have language and labels to define what is real or just. There will be no place to go, and all of humanity will suffer because in these times all the people will have to rely on is what the government and the police and the corporations tell them to do, instead of listening to themselves and each other and organizing together for a better world.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:44 pm


How Political is the Personal?:

Identity Politics, Feminism and Social Change


Joan D. Mandle
Associate Professor of Sociology
Colgate University


Second Wave Feminism

One of the best known and most important political slogans of the early Women's Liberation Movement in which I was involved in the middle 1960s claimed that "the personal is political." That phrase was honed in reaction to struggles within the 1960s social movements out of which the Women's Liberation Movement first emerged. It captured the insight that many of what were thought to be personal problems possessed social and political causes, were widely shared among women , and could only be resolved by social and political change.

In the l960s social movements - the Civil Rights Movement, the movement against the War in Vietnam, and the student movement which called for more student rights and decision-making power on college campuses - women were central actors. Within all these movements, however, women activists were denied the recognition and the responsibility that they deserved and that they had earned. Despite their commitment and contributions, they were all too often refused leadership positions, treated as second class citizens, told to make coffee, and put on display as sex objects. By the middle 1960s many of these women began to react to and organize around the strong contradiction within social movements which fought for self-determination and equality and yet which denied these same basic rights within their own ranks. First in the civil rights movement, with a statement written by Mary King and Casey Hayden, and soon afterward and more frequently in the anti-war movement, SDS, and other social movements, women radicals began to demand equity and respect as activists.

The reaction of many of their male and female comrades seems predictable in retrospect, but was shocking and demoralizing at the time. Women's claims were met with derision, ridicule, and the political argument that they were worrying about "personal" issues and in this way draining movement effectiveness in fighting the "political" injustices of racism and imperialism. How could women be so selfish, it was asked, to focus on their personal disgruntlement when black people were denied voting privileges in Mississippi, peasants were being napalmed in Vietnam, and students were treated as numbers in large faceless bureaucratic universities?

Movement women had no shortage of responses to these objections, but the one that became a mantra of the new women's movement emerging out of these struggles was the claim that personal lives - relationships with friends, lovers, political comrades - were not personal at all but characterized by power and fraught with political meaning. Women argued that assumptions that they were followers and men leaders, that women naturally were "better" with children and men "better" at organizing, that women should type and men should discuss issues - that all these assumptions were deeply political, denying women not only equality within progressive movements, but even more basically the freedom to choose for themselves what they could and should think and do. When most men and some of the women involved within the 60s movements refused to listen, many women left the movement to, as they put it at the time, "organize around our own oppression." They began a liberation movement dedicated to eliminating the ways in which women were constrained and harmed by sexist assumptions and behavior.

By and large the early women's movement, emerging from a political critique of what was defined as "personal" both in progressive movements and in the wider society, pressed for the removal of the social barriers and obstacles that had constrained women's choices. This was true with respect to a wide range of issues including reproductive choice, educational and occupational options, legal rights, as well as sexual orientation and personal relationships. The movement was intent on achieving social justice which it defined as providing women and men with similar opportunities to grow, develop, express, and exercise their potential as people. The political analysis underlying this vision of personal fulfillment asserted that elimination of the sexism which pervaded political and social institutional arrangements and attitudes was the best way of ensuring that every one, regardless of sex, would have the ability to exercise personal freedom.

Successes were many during those early years. The decades of the 60s and 70s were in fact characterized by enormous change in the range of behavior and choices open to women in our society. Consciousness was raised, and attitudes of both men and women underwent significant change concerning women's capabilities and rights, while the notion of equality between the sexes gained increased legitimacy. Change was especially rapid in the law during those years. Indeed, Jane Mansbridge notes that had the ERA been passed in l982, its effect would have been largely symbolic because almost all sex-differentiated (sexist) laws which such an amendment would have changed had already been altered by that time.

The social and political changes effected by the early women's movement thus were in the service of a sex-neutral model of society. In this, each individual would be afforded an equal opportunity to shape her or his own life regardless of sex. The notion of gender difference was deemphasized by a movement focused on equality, as women sought to gain the right to fully participate in all aspects of society. Differences between women and men, which had consistently been a central ideological and behavioral component of limiting women to a separate stereotyped "feminine" sphere, came under attack. The personal fact of one's sex became an arena of political struggle, as increasing numbers of feminists challenged the prevailing ideology that sex and gender were legitimate constraints on the right to self-determination. Political justice demanded that gender make no difference. Expectations were high that women would achieve the freedom they had been denied and that sexism would be defeated.

But in the 1980s much of this changed. The country as a whole became more conservative in all areas of political life, as the Right, with Ronald Reagan as its standard bearer, launched what Susan Faludi has referred to as a "Blacklash" against the progressive changes of the previous decades. As the gains of the women's movement began to slow, many feminists became discouraged with the continuation of sexist attitudes and behavior. The gap between incomes for women and men narrowed but remained stubbornly persistent, abortion rights came under renewed attack, and awareness of and concern about the extent of harassment and violence against women increased. This latter ironically reflected the Women's Movement's earlier success, for due to its efforts behavior previously regarded as legally unproblematic, such as sexual harassment at work or marital and date rape, was criminalized, and increased reporting of violence occurred. In addition, growing numbers of women found themselves doing what Arlie Hochschild has called the "Second Shift" - working at full time jobs during the day and a second job at home as they continued to assume most or all of the burden of home and child care in their families. Finally, even though the 1970s were the heyday of the Movement, increasing numbers of young girls at that time were being raised in poverty because their single mothers' former husbands or lovers contributed nothing to support them, were becoming painfully aware of the dangers of abuse, rape, and sexual harassment, and were discouraged by their mothers struggles with the double burden of work and family care. As these girls matured into young women in the 1980s, many were far from convinced that the women's movement had liberated anybody. All of these problems affecting women seemed to fly in the face of feminism's promises and expectations of equality, and some women, discouraged with the pace of change and the persistence of sexism, reacted by retreating from claims for equality and from demands for social change.

But as the 1980s progressed, it was not only feminists who were experiencing disillusionment and increasing pessimism. In an era when the conservative politics of Reaganism were dominant, the tragedy was that no compelling alternative progressive world-view was being constructed. A vision of a society of fairness and justice was not offered to counter the conservative hegemony, and the attainment of an egalitarian society seemed less and less possible.

Identity Politics

Out of this situation there emerged what has been called identity politics, a politics that stresses strong collective group identities as the basis of political analysis and action. As political engagement with the society as a whole was increasingly perceived to have produced insufficient progress or solutions, and in the absence of a compelling model of a society worth struggling for, many progressives retreated into a focus on their own "self" and into specific cultural and ideological identity groups which made rights, status, and privilege claims on the basis of a victimized identity. These groups included ethnic minorities such as African-Americans, Asian- Americans, Native Americans, religious groups, lesbian women and gay men, deaf and other disabled people. The desire to gain sympathy on the basis of a tarnished identity was sometimes taken to absurd lengths, as for example when privileged white men pronounced themselves victims based on their alleged oppression by women and especially by feminists. Indeed in the last decade there has been an explosion of groups vying with one another for social recognition of their oppression and respect for it. This has been especially exaggerated on college campuses where young people have divided into any number of separate identity groups.

Identity politics is centered on the idea that activism involves groups' turning inward and stressing separatism, strong collective identities, and political goals focused on psychological and personal self-esteem. Jeffrey Escofier, writing about the gay movement, defines identity politics in the following fashion:

"The politics of identity is a kind of cultural politics. It relies on the development of a culture that is able to create new and affirmative conceptions of the self, to articulate collective identities, and to forge a sense of group loyalty. Identity politics - very much like nationalism - requires the development of rigid definitions of the boundaries between those who have particular collective identities and those who do not."

Many progressive activists today have come to base their political analysis on collectively and often ideologically constructed identities which are seen as immutable and all-encompassing. These identities, for many, provide a retreat where they can feel "comfortable" and "safe" from the assaults and insults of the rest of the society. Today it is the case that many of those who profess a radical critique of society nonetheless do not feel able, as activists in the 60s and 70s did, to engage people outside their own self-defined group - either to press for improvement in their disadvantaged status or to join in coalition. Identity politics defines groups as so different from one another, with the gap dividing them so wide and unbridgeable, that interaction is purposeless. Not only is it assumed that working together will inevitably fail to bring progressive change that would benefit any particular group. In addition, identity groups discourage political contact because of their concern that the psychological injury and personal discomfort they believe such contact inevitably entails will harm individuals' self-esteem and erode their identity.

Identity politics thus is zero-sum: what helps one group is thought inevitably to harm another; what benefits them must hurt me. It is a politics of despair. In the name of advancing the interests of one's own group, it rejects attempts to educate, pressure, or change the society as a whole, thus accepting the status quo and revealing its essentially conservative nature. Identity politics advocates a retreat into the protection of the self based on the celebration of group identity. It is a politics of defeat and demoralization, of pessimism and selfishness. By seizing as much as possible for one's self and group, it exposes its complete disregard for the whole from which it has separated - for the rest of the society. Identity politics thus rejects the search for a just and comprehensive solution to social problems.

Feminism and Identity Politics

Like other progressive social movements, feminism has been deeply affected by the growth of identity politics. Within feminism, identity politics has taken two often-related forms which, together, I believe to be hegemonic today. One is generally referred to as difference or essentialist feminism, and the other as victim feminism. Difference feminism emphasizes the unique identity of women as a group, stressing and usually celebrating essential female characteristics which it believes make women different from - indeed even opposite to - men. Victim feminism also assumes that women have a unique identity, but the focus of that identity is women's victimization on the basis of sex, typically at the hands of men.

In defining difference feminism, Wendy Kaminer has stated that, by suggesting that women differ from men in a myriad of ways, it identifies "feminism with femininity." In what is perhaps the most influential version of this ideology, popularized in the work of Carol Gilligan, difference feminism emphasizes that women share "a different voice, different moral sensibilities - an ethic of care." According to Kaminer, this notion of female difference is attractive to feminists and non-feminists alike for a number of reasons. Difference feminism appeals to some feminists, she asserts, because it revalues previously devalued characteristics such as emotionality and social connectedness which women are thought to embody. In declaring female traits superior to those such as aggression and rationality which characterize men, difference feminism seems to reject sexism by turning it on its head. It thus provides a clear group identity for women which stresses the way they are special.

According to Kaminer, difference feminism is also attractive to feminists in another manner. She argues that it allows feminists to be angry at men and challenge their hegemony without worrying that they are giving up their femininity. Because they are socialized to fear the loss of femininity, the advocacy of radical change in gender roles is deeply threatening to many women, including feminists. Difference feminism's reassertion of the value of femininity helps to assuage these fears and thus seems to make feminism more acceptable. Finally, even some non-feminists are drawn to difference feminism because it legitimates a belief in immutable and natural sex differences, a central tenet of conservative claims for support of the status quo. As noted above, this conservative bias is a pivotal element of difference feminism.

What Naomi Wolf has called victim feminism also reinforces identity politics, for victim feminism also assumes women's diametrical difference from men as a central component of its view. According to victim feminism, however, what is unique about women's difference is that they are powerless to affect the victim status by which they are primarily defined. Wolf argues that victim feminism "turns suffering and persecution into a kind of glamour." The attractiveness of this model is partially due to the fact that feminists understand all too well the discouraging reality that women have been and continue to be victims of sexism, male violence, and discrimination. But victim feminism is attractive to others primarily because it absolves individuals of the political responsibility to act to change their own condition. Its emphasis on personal victimization includes a refusal to hold women in any way responsible for their problems. It thus implies that, as a group, women are helpless in the face of the overwhelming factors which force them to accept - however unhappily - the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Such a view of women resonates with many non-feminists as well because it pictures women as passive and in need of protection, a view consistent with traditionally sexist ideas of women and femininity. And finally, victim feminism is popular because it is consistent with the explosion of self-help programs and talk shows where individuals - disproportionately women - compete for public recognition of their claims to personally victimized status. These shows try - all too successfully - to convince their audiences and even perhaps their guests that exposing personal problems on television is itself a solution to them, in this way delegitimating the serious political changes which many such problems require for their elimination.

The hegemony of identity politics within feminism, in my view, has helped to stymie the growth of a large scale feminist movement which could effectively challenge sexism and create the possibility of justice and fairness in our society. On the one hand identity politics makes the coalitions needed to build a mass movement for social change extremely difficult. With its emphasis on internal group solidarity and personal self-esteem, identity politics divides potential allies from one another. Difference feminism makes the task for example of including men in the struggle against sexism almost impossible, and even trying to change men's behavior or attitudes is made to seem futile because of the assumption that the sexes share so little. Indeed some difference feminists assert that women and men are so different from one another that they can hardly communicate across sex at all. The phrase "Men don't get it" too often implies that they "can't" get it, because, it is argued by difference feminists, only women have the capacity to really understand what other women are talking about. This of course is nonsense without any empirical validity, but identity politics so strongly stresses sex differences that this has come to be the accepted wisdom.

But it is not just coalitions across sex that are assumed to be impossible, but coalitions among women as well. One of the problems with identity politics is that its assumptions can lead to an almost infinite number of smaller and smaller female identity groups. Identity politics puts a premium on valuing and exaggerating differences existing among women as well as those that are cross-sex. This makes large and potentially powerful feminist organizations difficult to sustain. One example of this effect was the problem of fractionalization within the National Women Studies Association (NWSA) some years ago, largely due to the many splits that occurred within its ranks. Identity groups organized within the organization pitting academic women against non-academic, Jewish women against non-Jews, women of color against white women, lesbians against straight women, lesbians of color against white lesbians, mothers against non-mothers and more. Each group focused on its own identity, its own victimization which it set up in competition with others' claims of victim status, and ins response to which it demanded recognition and concessions from the organization. The center - if it existed - simply could not hold and the organization, which had played a very important role in creating and supporting women's studies programs on campuses, was wracked by years of conflict from which it has only recently recovered.

Thus, by stressing the characteristics which divide us, the logic of identity politics is that ultimately each individual is her own group. If each individual is different from all others, then to protect herself adequately she needs to be selfish - to ally with no one and to count only on herself to protect her interests. It is obvious that this stance makes it completely impossible to bring together the large numbers of people necessary successfully to press for social change. Coalitions fail to develop or are not even attempted. In this way, identity politics within feminism, as elsewhere, is basically conservative, working against progressive change and supporting the status quo.


Continues at: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wms ... y_pol.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:29 pm


“Women on the Market”

Luce Irigaray

Chapter Eight, This Sex Which Is Not One [PDF], 1985.

This text was originally published as “Le marche des femmes,” in Sessualita
e politica, (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1978).



The society we know, our own culture, is based upon the exchange of women. Without the exchange of women, we are told, we would fall back into the anarchy (?) of the natural world, the randomness (?) of the animal kingdom. The passage into the social order, into the symbolic order, into order as such, is assured by the fact that men, or groups of men, circulate women among themselves, according to a rule known as the incest taboo.

Whatever familial form this prohibition may take in a given state of society, its signification has a much broader impact. It assures the foundation of the economic, social, and cultural order that has been ours for centuries.

Why exchange women? Because they are “scarce [commodities] . . . essential to the life of the group,” the anthropologist tells us.1 Why this characteristic of scarcity, given the biological equilibrium between male and female births? Because the “deep polygamous tendency, which exists among all men, always makes the number of available women seem insufficient. Let us add that even if there were as many women as men, these women would not be equally desirable … and that, by definition. . ., the most desirable women must form a minority. “2

Are men all equally desirable? Do women have no tendency toward polygamy? The good anthropologist does not raise such questions. A fortiori: why are men not objects of exchange among women? It is because women’s bodies-through their use, consumption, and circulation-provide for the condition making social life and culture possible, although they remain an unknown “infrastructure” of the elaboration of that social life and culture. The exploitation of the matter that has been sexualized female is so integral a part of our sociocultural horizon that there is no way to interpret it except within this horizon.

In still other words: all the systems of exchange that organize patriarchal societies and all the modalities of productive work that are recognized, valued, and rewarded in these societies are men’s business. The production of women, signs, and commodities is always referred back to men (when a man buys a girl, he “pays” the father or the brother, not the mother … ), and they always pass from one man to another, from one group of men to another. The work force is thus always assumed to be masculine, and “products” are objects to be used, objects of transaction among men alone.

Continues at: http://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... he-market/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:41 pm


The Problem of Race in the 1990s

On February 11, 1992, within a week of opening arguments in the case of the white police officers who beat african american Rodney King in los angeles, Frederick Goodwin, then director of the nation’s alcohol, Drug abuse, and Mental Health administration (aDaMHa) unveiled a new federal plan to combat violence in america’s ravaged inner cities: the Violence initiative. in an address to the national institute of Mental Health’s (niMH) national advisory Mental Health Council, Goodwin called violence a public health issue, requiring the combined efforts of governmental agencies and the research apparatus they support to combat it. in the course of his presentation to the council, Goodwin made the following impromptu remarks:

If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence. That is the natural way of it for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying.

Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner-city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn’t just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our evolution.

This just reminds us that although we look at individual factors and we look at biological differences and we look at genetic differences, the loss of structure in society is probably why we are dealing with this issue.
(Goodwin 1992, cited in New York Times February 22, 1992)

In the wake of Goodwin’s unplanned oration and the wide press coverage it provoked, the Violence initiative soon commanded national attention.6 He himself did not expect that his connection between violent, hypersexual monkeys and poor urban youth would be received as a racist invocation of images that have within “the sciences of man,” as Donna Haraway has put it, constructed blacks as “the beast” or “‘primitives’ more closely connected to the apes than the white ‘race’” (1989, 153).7 Nevertheless, Goodwin apologized ten days later, characterizing his comments as “insensitive and careless” and insisting, “I have always said that in these studies it is crucial to focus on individual vulnerability and not on race” (quoted in New York Times, February 22, 1992).8

The ill-fated announcement of the Violence initiative marked a period in which the specter of the “dangerous individual” came to occupy a prominent place in public discussion. investigation of individuals’ “violent tendencies” necessitated increasingly detailed attention to the body and its operations. But while this attention can resemble the detailed scrutiny Foucault ascribed to the “disciplinary operation,” this particular investigation of the body differs in important ways from that of the disciplinary gaze: the attention directed at the violent body is aimed not at the “internalization” of an authoritative gaze by the individual him or herself, but rather, at the individualizing of a group against whom the population needs protection. Rather than a diffused gaze that “anyone” can employ, the authority of the regulatory gaze is consolidated for the state’s use.

If it seems clear that a government-funded initiative that targets a population of racially marked others who would be most “vulnerable” to violent behaviors in an effort to protect those who would be, in turn, “vulnerable” to these individuals, would provoke public controversy, it is because the specific expression of racism in the twentieth century (and evidently of the twenty-first, as well) differs from the old racism of the nineteenth century. in Abnormal, Foucault characterized this new racism as one “whose function is not so much the prejudice or defense of one group against another as the detection of all those within a group who may be the carriers of a danger to it. it is an internal racism that permits the screening of every individual within a given society” (Foucault 1999/2003, 316–17). Yet to understand the specific operation of this power, we must remember that detailed attention to the individual—the object of disciplinary power—is not the final target. The power that emerges at this time “uses” disciplinary mechanisms to get to what Foucault loosely termed the “background-body” (313), a body “behind the abnormal body” that is responsible for the appearance of the delinquent or abnormal “condition” (312). Foucault asked, “What is this background-body, this body behind the abnormal body? It is the parents’ body . . . the body of the family, the body of heredity” (313).

Monkeys, Mothers, and Monsters

At the same time, the headlines of the late 1980s and 1990s were featuring mounting evidence of crime and the decreasing age of its offenders (New York Times, September 8, november 19, 1995), another sort of “dangerous individual” was being featured right alongside. Poor, single mothers—notoriously inscribed in the figure of the “welfare queen”—became “omnipresent in discussions about ‘america’s’ present or future even when unnamed” (lubiano 1992, 332). While no explicit mention of such mothers was made in public discussions of the Violence initiative, their presence was nevertheless unmistakable. Goodwin’s comments concerning violent monkeys and jungles may have been written off as so much blunder, but his remarks made plain reference to an important body of ongoing niH research into the role of mothers in the making of the violent individual.

The research to which Goodwin referred is most closely associated with primatologist Stephen Suomi, best known for having identified a “dramatic biochemical difference” in the small percentage of male, adolescent monkeys who are violent for no discernible reason, who become what one science writer for the Washington Post described as “outcasts—repeat offenders for whom there is no place in rhesus society” (Washington Post, March 1, 1992). Suomi was particularly concerned with the role of “maternal nurturance” in the making of the violent individual. “What interests many of us,” Suomi said at the time, “is that serotonin levels of monkeys—and their personality differences—can be traced back to an animal’s early beginnings. . . . it makes a big difference what kind of mothers they had and what their genetic heritage was” (quoted in Washington Post, March 1, 1992).

According to a report in the Journal of NIH Research, Suomi demonstrated that infant monkeys who have been removed from their mothers and raised by what were characterized as “foster” mothers in groups with their peers, displayed a marked propensity to violence as juveniles, a finding Suomi understood as a result of “poor early attachment” (quoted in Touchette 1994) with which a low level of serotonin is associated (Higley and Suomi 1996). in addition, he found that animals with “low concentrations of [serotonin], like their human counterparts, tend to drink more alcohol,” a significant finding in the context of violence research, given that statistics show that “more than half of all violent crimes involve the use of alcohol” (quoted in Touchette 1994; see also Suomi 2002, 275).

The conclusions drawn from research concerning the importance of a primary “nurturing relationship” for a child could be used to justify a need for state-sponsored programs to facilitate the development of this crucial mother-infant bond. That the research did not lend itself to such recommendations may be owing to a second set of conclusions Suomi drew, namely, that an important genetic component also contributed to a child’s propensity to violent behavior: according to Suomi, having been separated from their mothers, male offspring of violent parents have a “tendency to get involved in fights . . . [and to] fight longer and harder than others even raised apart from their biological parent” (quoted in Mestel 1994). Yet, as he elaborates in a follow-up study, “allelic variation in the serotonin transporter gene . . . is associated with deficits . . . for peer-reared, but not mother-reared, [male] rhesus monkey adolescents and infants” (Suomi 2002, 275). This suggests that genetic factors may play a role, but only if environmental conditions (such as the absence of a mother) “activate” them—which one might imagine could speak, once again, to social policies that would support stable families.



Excerpted from: “The Dangerous Individual(’s) Mother: Biopower, Family, and the Production of Race”

Ellen K. Feder

Hypatia vol. 22, no. 2 (Spring 2007)

caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/ellen-k-feder-the-dangerous-individual’s-mother-biopower-family-and-the-production-of-race/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:24 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:33 pm




Last edited by American Dream on Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:37 pm




American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:42 pm

.

Image


This 1962 high-school textbook, "When You Marry,"
is a long, mind-bendingly awful manual for marriage,
including sticking to traditional gender roles,
staying away from race-mixing,
resisting communism
and saving yourself for your wedding night.



Love, 1962 American High School Style
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:48 pm

Image


"It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening."
-Jerry Fallwell
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests