Haven't read this exchange, but I wonder whether anyone has commented on the social construction of childhood (Marx Wartofsky once wrote about this from a historical materialist point of view).
The 19th century bourgeoisie were quite interested in reducing the period of childhood to facilitate the exploitation of child labor. There is no possibility in our social world or anyone that I can imagine that a 13 year old could have the autonomous power to choose freely to engage in a sex act with a forty four year old man. There may be a question about enough time having passed in determining Polanski's punishment. I don't know about that, but those who think childhood is so flexible or such an invention that it could be as short as Polanski wants it to be seem oblivious to the biological possibilities of a thirteen year old, the as yet undeveloped nature of the frontal lobes, and the actual minimal independence a thirteen year old has a chance to develop. Polanski may find himself attracted to the wildest versions of social constructionism, but Marxists should be very skeptical of this line of argument. Simply put, a thirteen year old cannot be the willing sexual partner of an adult. It's not biologically or cognitively possible. Not in this society or in any society that we can now imagine. Polanski's statement that she was not an innocent is insidious. Now on the passivity in the face of 15 million unemployed. Boltanski and Chiapello have an interesting idea: Workers who are employable and mobile enjoy privileges that the immobile are not able to wrest from their employers. In fact the privileges enjoyed by the former may even contribute to a further reduction of the resources available to the immobile. Yet the immobile blame themselves for their condition, and are grateful for what they have, given that they are not mobile as the better off workers are (of course the immobile do so many tasks the mobile have the time to do what they need to remain mobile--develop new skills, network, innovate) . The point is that the working class is divided upon itself, making the demands of the immobile, the unemployed and the uninsured seem special, narrow and resentful. And then there is that social Darwinist streak in American social life. Remember also that anyone who admits the possibility of involuntary unemployment and thinks that there is a public obligation to reduce the resultant suffering or thinks the state should take steps to make American capitalism live up to its equal opportunity creed (say subsidized pre school or student loans) is called a Marxist by Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Father Coughlin. At present people don't want to be called Marxists just as not long ago no one wanted to be a liberal. ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
