Re: Advanced Capitalism and Gender Relations: My theoretical Mistakes

[Rinita Mazumdar]

Hey All,


Must be overworked, my theoretical mistake when I said that Capitalism oppresses gender more; I have to be more specific; I meant that Fordist type Capitalism where the public and the private is strictly divided according to the "workplace" of maximum production and the "domestic" sphere is elevated as the "place" of comfort and security. In post colonial Fordist type domesticity is even more oppressive because often the middle class (created along the lines of European middle class draw their fractured identity, from the West), so public is "West" =material" and private is Nation, where some kind of spirituality is constructed, the home is the spiritual place, the place of the Nation, where the Nation is reproduced, and generated.



In other forms of Capitalism such as advanced Capitalism or consumer ones where production mostly takes place elsewhere since they have re-territorizlied the globe, gender relations are different although the ideal of the "Malthusian couple" has not gone away.

Since the "perfect" race has to be still reproduced in the name of the Nation!

I think what I wanted to say in this thread is that with the public acknowldgement of the Geishas and the mistresses and so on , we see the plethora of porn sites and "escort services", which shows that the hypocritical institution of marriage has adjusted itself to new level (not to forget the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!) of development,

I shall post all your comments on my blogs,
Rinita

On 9 June 2010 11:04, Rinita Mazumdar <revfem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Venu, Vidya, and Raj your thoughtful comments on "arranged marriages"

They are simply wonderful! I shall put them on my blog!

(I have here all their posts)

 

 

Venu as usual your sense of humor is just gorgeous! "Divorce" is cool! Yeah, I am a divorcee and I heard all kinds of bad stuff till you said this one....Also, I agree 100 per cent with Venu that all marraiges are "arranged" because it is a patriarchical institution based on exchange of that one commodity...

 

Vidya and Raj great posts!

 

I am going crazy with my Summer Course, but will add some cookies and will continue with this, other please add and I shall put everything on my blog.

 

Even if I am not a hard core Levi Strauusian (the anthropologist) I have to agree with him that human being moved from "nature" to "culture" when humans (men) started transaction of commodities (the start of the "market) based on their "primitive notions" of "equal exchange" like excahnge of four cows for two horses (depending on scarcity of commodities), I personally do not subscribe to the notion of "scarcity" in the market sense, as there is a subjective element in the word "scarcity", so it again depens on what we value.

 

Now that there is a market established, there must be as Levi Strauss found out ONE UNIVERSAL COMMODITY of exchange... and he found that in BLOOD, the relation of blood is based on forcible alliance or kinship structure, and hence they also found the supreme commodity of exchange, called "woman" by which blood alliances are formed (as the royal dynasties of Europe, etc). Hence, woman is the supreme commodity in all transaction which is actually the base on which the superstructure of society is built.

 

this is my contention with Marx also: according to Marx the base is the mode and relations of production (Contribution to the Critique of Poli Econ), and the superstructure is culture, state... but this is only a feature of Capitalism (if at all)..  all former systems were based on Kinship as the base on which the superstructure is based... in fact economy was kinship and hence women remain the supre mode of exchange...

 

Now here is my problem with having this institution for alternative sexualities.... are they also not falling into the patriarchical and specially boougeois trap by mimicing the Mathusian heterosexual monogamous couple... and thus contributing to their own oppression... any thoughts?

 

Interestingly, Irigary says that within this circulation of exchange women have three positions, virgin (pure exchange), mother (whose exchange is for use for the purpose of propogation of the species) and whores (whose more use increases exchange).

 

I happen to think, however, Capitalism is more oppressive, where women adopt the ideology of "love" with a man... and become dependent.. to be continued, please post your thoughts...

 

Rinita

 

 

I will rather take every divorce with cool.
People with a unique sense of personal identity naturally  love to be
just themselves.
You may feel this sense of uniqueness threatened, no matter how long
you lived your partnership in matrimony.
Hence, even when increased incidences of divorce become a feature of
advanced capitalism it can not be wished away in socialism either.
Answer in arranged marriages? Yes, but the trouble is that all
marriages are arranged, one way or other!
Can we think of a world without husband and wives? May be socialism
alone can give an answer, at least in long run.
Thanks,
(Venu)

 

 

 

Venu,

 

 Hi,

This debate is very much in India among the people, activists and academics as so-called arrange marriages are successful than love marriages. Actually, marriage itself is a feudal construct and define clearly at least in our parts of the world, rights and duties of man and woman.

The problem is that in the arrange marriages it is the family which comes first.. the family honor.. respecting the patriarch of the family as his word would be the final.. nobody can question him.. we all obey him as you might have seen in some of the bollywood movies these days.

Arrange marriages look successful as they try to save it. There is complete social pressure and it has actually imbibed in our personality also that marriages has to succeed at any cost.
And to look successful in public eye, we pretend everything is fine. So because even in the case of violence at home, a woman would not be ask to report to police but to get matter resolved at home.. so no cases of divorce. Actually, here woman surrender her rights to the 'happiness' of her family and man surrender himself to the supreme power of patriarch as he himself will become that one day.

So called love marriages are nothing more than a replicaton of these marriages albiet arranged by the youngs themselves. Some of them actually involve their parents while other do not, yet they do suffer from the same pressure of making it successful.

the moot question is that if the two partners are unable to carry on their relationship why should be they force to live life long. It is this psychology that marriage has to last till death do us part, makes the indian family as one of the most traumatic institution. People enjoy it too but internally it has failed and it is sustaining for the Ijjat or honor of the family.

There was a time when divorce was highly disliked by Hindus. And there is a rare possiblity of a divorce woman getting remarriages. These are realities and dark realities of India where women are still measured.

If you can see why there are violent reactions to so-called love marriages.. and u will find that it is basically the fear of losing control over your children. One a person decide to live life on his own, family fear, he would not be in their control. It is this control freak society and marriage provide an excellent tool to control us.

I do  agree with Rinita's assessment. Whether they are successful in Fiji or England, it depends on who are involved in 'arrange marriages'.. Indians  who have left India still live in the prism of their caste and class identities and definitely  thes false identities give them a sense of superiority over others. They can not do away with it for the fear of annhiliation of their caste identities. Once our youngs decide their own marriages and do not tag it as a life time trophy to save it at any cost, for the sake of society, caste and gender disparities will disappear.Both these abominable institutions which kept India in darkness do still play important role in our marriage system.

 

 

Hello Dr Mazumdar,

I have also heard this talk that the ‘arranged marriage’ leads to lower divorce rates and longer lasting marriages. That may be true, but I do not think we can reasonably infer from this information that the arranged marriage is more desirable than any other kind of marriage because of its longevity or low divorce rate.
 
This is primarily for two reasons. Firstly, a low divorce rate doesn’t necessarily mean we can infer that the people in these marriages are happier than any other marriage. It may mean that divorces in a society are particularly looked down and frowned upon, or may lead to further repercussions down the line (for example, it being much more difficult for a woman to get married again after she has been divorced). Secondly, the longevity of the marriage may also be pinned down to the same reason. The notion of adaptive preferences – the idea that a person’s preferences are adapted to a particular society they are raised in – becomes very important here.

 

Especially when we recognize a particular social arrangement as not having the weight it may claim to have. The Brahmanical feudal social arrangement claims to be built upon a metaphysical principle that separates people into different castes. It is clear that this metaphysical principle is nonsense and there is absolutely no essential difference between those at the top or at the bottom of the caste system except the particular part of the web of the power structure they happen to be born into. Therefore the inferences drawn from this metaphysical principle are also nonsensical and therefore the adaptive preferences that are drawn from them are nonsensical.
 
It is helpful to view notions of marriage and even “love” in the correct social, political and economic framework to tear it out of the cliché we are given in the bourgeoisie construct (whether in Hollywood or Bollywood – the excrementitious stench remains the same). Bollywood is probably worse because of the kind of message it sends out – if you have seen Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, which won a number of awards in the year 2000! – the moral of the story is that a woman should provide care to the Indian man despite her own subjectivity and wishes and she will reach this decision eventually through reasoning and this is her [only] path to happiness. A thoughtful person would vomit at such crass moralism. Our society gives awards to such “vision”.
 
Marriage – it seems to me – is generally a bourgeoisie political structure involving concepts of labour, time, industry, exclusivity and property rights (not only property rights in nouveau sense; property rights in the proper traditional sense – that is – property rights over females etc. The notion of ‘arrangement’ can be best explained in such a way: the bourgeoisie finally finds itself a structure in which it can now control the movement of a subjective commodity (typically the female in the family) and properly invest it. Reproduction is also controlled in this way, which means that kin is controlled which ultimately means – yes you guessed it – wealth is controlled. I will not say much more about this here but this is why the obnoxious social practice of a woman who has been married before finds it hard to find companionship again has taken hold. The vulgar term of “used goods” comes to mind –  this is precisely the kind of judgment that is happening when the social response to a woman's divorce is lack of ability of remarry.

Raj

On 9 June 2010 04:50, venukm <kmven...@gmail.com> wrote:

I will rather take every divorce with cool.
People with a unique sense of personal identity naturally  love to be
just themselves.
You may feel this sense of uniqueness threatened, no matter how long
you lived your partnership in matrimony.
Hence, even when increased incidences of divorce become a feature of
advanced capitalism it can not be wished away in socialism either.
Answer in arranged marriages? Yes, but the trouble is that all
marriages are arranged, one way or other!
Can we think of a world without husband and wives? May be socialism
alone can give an answer, at least in long run.
Thanks,
(Venu)

On Jun 4, 5:42 am, Sabri Sky <sabriclay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My neighbor from Fiji says arranged marriages work better; the divorce rates
> are lower; marriage comes first, love comes later.
> Is this a feature of oppressive cultural imperative, or is it actually a key
> or at least clue to successful marriages?
> She says what i understand as basically the cultural practice of not having
> the imperative to make successful an arranged marriage allows for such
> common unhappy & dissolutive relationships in the U.S.
>

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Rinita Mazumdar <revfemini...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/al-and-tipper-what-happened-1610250/
>
> > --
> >http://rinitamazumdar.com/
>
> > Rinita Mazumdar, Ph.D
> > Women Studies and Philosophy,
> > University of New Mexico
>
> --
> Sabri Sky

--
http://rinitamazumdar.com/

Rinita Mazumdar, Ph.D
Women Studies and Philosophy,
University of New Mexico

--
http://rinitamazumdar.com/

Rinita Mazumdar, Ph.D
Women Studies and Philosophy,
University of New Mexico