On Sep 2, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
That
is why I've been saying that history does not repeat itself, not even
as a farce, and that believing, without evidence, that the same
constellation of social forces of the past still obtained in the
present makes us unable to see what's what.
Doyle;
First I think you have opened up the discussion of socialism to much more depths than I encounter anywhere else. I am very appreciative of that.
I think Capitalism is a kind of relations to the means of production. And Communist were trying to get rid of the 'relationship'. The relationship continued after the 1949 revolution and class relations were reproduced on a large scale eventually. The means of locking an equality in the working class was not achieved. Now this might be said to be not a matter of history determining the present, that is not repeating itself. But it can be said in my view to be Capitalism reproducing itself across society in the face of efforts by Communist to get rid of it. In that context I move to your very insightful comment;
Yoshie writes;
Iran, too, has gotten secularized, due to
increasing development, urbanization, proletarianization, and so on,
so, in the near future, it will probably either drop Islamism or
reform Islam to end de jure gender segregation where it still exists,
but the basic homosocial organization of society will probably outlive
that change.
Homosocial societies have their charm.
Doyle;
I looked up Homosocial in good ole Wikipedia and reproduce the definition;
<x-tad-bigger>The term </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>homosocial</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> is used in </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>sociology</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> and denotes same-sex relationships that are not of </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>sexual</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> nature. For example, a </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>heterosexual</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> male who prefers to socialize with men may be considered a homosocial heterosexual.
Homosociality is a term frequently used in discussions of the all-male world of knightly life in </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>medieval culture</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>.</x-tad-bigger>[citation needed]<x-tad-bigger> Homosocial relationships are not obliged to be sexual relationships, they are merely same-sex social interactions. The term homosociality is most often used with reference to male relationships.</x-tad-bigger>[<x-tad-bigger>Rosabeth Moss Kanter</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> used the term "homosocial reproduction" (originally, "homosexual reproduction") to describe the alleged tendencies of corporate executives to socalize with and promote other men, resulting in a </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>glass ceiling</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> for women in the same environment.</x-tad-bigger>
Doyle;
This seems to me to rouse up the fundamental issue before Socialist, i.e. human connection processes. That is knowledge production. For example, to say a homosocial milieu has it's charms, I take to mean there is an emotional attraction to the single sex community. And for me, then a Socialist is really considering emotional knowledge production.
Is that division a source of class relations? Or is that Patriarchy? Thus representing many still poorly resolved issues in extant Socialist societies themselves that Yoshie exposes. And it is in my view because the question of social connection knowledge is primitive and based upon face to face connection processes that a Socialist connection process has floundered. The work process is usually pushed aside because so much of the theory around it is either metaphysical like Martha Nussbaum's writings on Disgust and Shame, or black box Psychological speculation tainted by organizing therapy into a little petty businesses of face to face therapy that fundamentally obscures the large scale knowledge production problems Socialist want to resolve.
Homosocial milieu are based upon face to face interactivity. Capitalist on a global scale cannot do that because the working force must be able to access 'knowledge' without regard to face to face milieu. For Socialist now, they must have a credible emotion structure for the masses to adhere to that is not just the basic material offerings. It is really in my view what 'Queers' open up as the main arena of Socialist revolution.
thanks,
Doyle
