Thank you Rajani, for this interesting essay. So much here I would endorse, 
that we seek the felicity of 'warm kindred relations', and that our separation 
from nature promotes disease.

One aspect of alienation that you don't name, though it is implicit in this 
article, is alienation from ourselves. (Did the 'self' exist for Marx outside 
of its position in the economic and historical structure of society?)

What we are seeing currently is a challenge to conventional gender divisions, 
based on claims to the 'validity of subjective experience'. LGBTQ plus non 
binary offer a whole range of alternatives to those who feel constricted by 
conventional gender assignments. This choice is being given to children as 
young as 10 years old within the UK education system, and the UK Labour Party 
has recently agreed to accept applicants for women's positions from those who 
'self-identify as women'.

Questioning gender divisions also challenges our whole notion of what we think 
of as 'masculine' and 'feminine' qualities.  

What Is happening now within EM (to use your terminology) is that there is 
beginning to be a recognition of the validity of a subjective experience, which 
is not tied to social norms. This freedom allows us to see that though there 
may be distinct biological differences, (and even these vary much more than is 
generally supposed) between masculine and feminine, this does not define 
qualitative differences between genders. Women are free to be as 'masculine' as 
they want and vice versa. This is acknowledged within enlightenment 
philosophies, by proposing that everybody has both masculine and feminine 
qualities within them, 'the yin yang paradigm'. Although this makes a nonsense 
of the distinction between masculine and feminine qualities, yet it seems 
difficult for people to abandon that mindset.

 Perhaps it is time for you to re-assess your thoughts on this as quoted from 
Wikipaedia: "that men and women are distinct sub-species embodying a "paradigm 
of masculinity" and a "paradigm of femininity", respectively, correlated to 
violence and nurturance, that are basically instinctual in nature despite their 
cultural variation".

Anna


> On 11 Jul 2018, at 03:27, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: r kanth <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:54 AM
> Subject: Fwd: From Rajani: On Alienation: : A Non-Eurocentric View
> To: Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                          Further Notes on 
> Euro-Modernism*
> 
>                                                                            On 
> Alienation
> 
>                                                                    
> 
> Alienation is a major theme in European discourse, both theological and 
> philosophical, in its EM  (EuroModernist) phase.
> 
> Marx , one of the great canonicals in that  august lineage, e.g.,  noted 
> several  aspects of alienation:  of workers -  from their product, from the 
> production process(run by owners/agents) , from each other(via ‘competition’) 
> ,   and from their own species essence (Gattungswesen).
> 
> I wish to identify the last as specially important, if in a marginally 
> different sense,  as far as our ‘species-essence’ goes– perhaps – from Marx.
> 
> I also wish to add another species of alienation,   a  little less relevant, 
> perhaps,  to a  child of the enlightenment,  and  an heir to industrial 
> society,  like Marx: i.e. alienation from nature.
> 
> *
> 
> Gattungswesen.
> 
> I have argued that , contra all the norms of EM,  we as a species are 
> affective beings, led to seek the felicity of warm kindred relations, 
> instinctually: familial,  co-operative,  and communal.
> 
> EM,  by setting up its alternate  template of competition, 
> acquisitivenessness, individualist,  self-seeking behavior  (as in the 
> pseudo-science of “Economics”), offers a paradigm strikingly opposed to this 
> human essence.
> 
> This sets up not   so-called ‘cognitive dissonance’ –  a  buzz-word if ever 
> there was one -  but , even deeper, an existential nightmare for humans 
> compelled to act against their very own  natures.
> 
> This is the  ontic basis of angst and despair, noted by existentialist 
> writers,  for generations.
> 
> This is why   the so-called  ‘happiness index’ is so low in all societies 
> most ‘advanced’ in EM norms, such as the US; and why the UK, uabashedly, 
> recently set up , no less, a ministry for ‘loneliness’.
> 
> *
> 
> Nature.
> 
> We are , contra the shibboleths of Biblical ideology, part of nature, i.e ., 
> we are animals
> 
> Even  the radical Marx, echoing his own  Judeo-Christian  heritage,  spoke of 
> “Man’  proudly as the ‘sovereign of creation”.
> 
> He hadn’t  studied  Darwin (Darwin’s classic work  was published, late:  the 
> same year as  one of Marx’s classic works: 1859).
> 
> At any rate, we are part of nature: and when we are kept away from it,  as we 
> are, more or less,  in all EM societies, in arid cityscapes of cement and 
> steel, our ‘spirits sag’  (all but unconsciously) and we experience  an 
> ineffable  distress (poetically depicted  in Keats’ To One Who Has Been Long 
> in City Pent’ verse) .
> 
> Presumably parks exist , here and there, in cities, to alleviate that 
> disorder.
> 
> It is a unique form of alienation – i.e. suffering -  lifted  by that trope 
> of    ‘One Touch of Nature”, as Shakespeare had it,  that “ Makes the Whole 
> World Kin"  .
> 
> It is  a misery quite  akin to that caused by the rupture with Gattungswesen.
> 
> *
> 
> To sum up.
> 
> In my view, we are, as a species,  alienated when separated from family, 
> community,  and nature.
> 
> Marx, subscribing – as did most  all his peers in political economy -  - to 
> EM’s (philosophical) materialism ,  prioritised  human engagement in 
> production as critical (‘work’  is an important concept  in Protestant 
> -Calvinist - theology as well),  whence his ‘alienations’ , leastways,  begin 
> in that domain.
> 
> I theorise, au contraire,  the priority of  family, culture,  and society, 
> within  the geist of our species.
> 
> Native American children, cruelly and brutishly separated  from their 
> families/culture/ and society by their  oppressors, as part of an 
> ‘experiment’ to ‘civilise the savage’ ,   apparently died ‘mysteriously’ in 
> large numbers, or so it is reported.
> 
> No: no mystery.
> 
> It is explained by what I argue, above: no EM philosophy can ‘explain’ it.
> 
> This alienation is critical: at its extreme, we suffer a loss of being, of 
> sanity,  of wholeness, and incur a debilitating  anomie when so separated.
> 
> I will repeat: when separated  from family, community, and nature,  we 
> experience a  critical breach of what we could term the wholeness of being.
> 
> For humans, involuntary  isolation could well be  the ultimate  terror (which 
> is why being put away’ in solitary ‘ is such a barbaric mode of ‘correction’).
> 
> Such  ‘isolation’ is now, sadly,  near-chronic  in EM societies (vide 
> Ministries of Loneliness)
> 
> It may well account for the  unmistakable madness of our (EM) age, in the 
> final stages of what I have termed, in my recent book (2017)  ‘Human  
> Devolution’.
> 
> I will  conclude by repeating my  principal thesis : in virtually Everything 
> it claims , represents,  or commends, Euromodernism is categorically mistaken 
> :   and , worse,  more often  than not, positively injurious  to human 
> existence.
> 
> The sooner we see through, and reject, its many charades,  the sooner we 
> might have a chance to save what  still remains of our social, natural , and 
> emotive/personal, world.
> 
> *EuroModernism , or EM, for short, is my term for the  specific form of 
> Modernism that Europe first invented, and imposed on itself, and its 
> benighted populace, and then exported  - perforce, to its everlasting 
> detriment -   to the world at large.
> 
>                                      
> 
>                                                           R  E  F  E  R  E  N 
>  C  E  S
> 
>  
> 
> Kanth, R.  Breaking with the Enlightenment, NJ: Humanities Press, 1997
> 
> _______   Farewell to Modernism, NY: Peter Lang, 2017
> 
> [©R.Kanth 2018] 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net 
> 
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: 
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
> 
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; 
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> 
> Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net
> Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> 
> Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by 
> making a donation. Thank you for your support.
> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
> 
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list

Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net
Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net

Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making 
a donation. Thank you for your support.
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation

https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Reply via email to