Chapter Ten: Via Feminism to Parkinship
This is a draft of chapter ten of a book in process titled ფანფარი მომავლისთვის.
It is for use by participants in the HelpAlbert ZGroup. Please do not circulate
In discussing visions for gender relations in accord with our overall conceptual framework we have in mind a good society's procreation, nurturance, socialization, sexuality, and organization of daily home life with a special eye on three dimensions of implications – those bearing on relations between women and men, between homo and heterosexuals, and between members of different generations.
Kinship Vision
A problem with this discussion, is that there is as yet very little clarity about what revolutionized kinship relations will be like in a new society. What altered or new institutions will organize procreation, nurturance, and socialization? How will the structures and social roles we fill to accomplish upbringing and home life change?
Our values imply that accomplishing kinship functions should also enhance solidarity among the involved actors, preserve diversity of options and choices, apportion benefits and responibilities fairly, and convey self managing influence – all as make sense in this sphere of life, taking into account issues of age, etc.
So with that set of broad desires, will there be families as we now know them? And whatever families we have, what else will exist? Will upbringing diverge greatly from what we know now? What about courting and sexual coupling? How will the old and young interact with what we now call adults and vice versa, how will adults react with the elderly and the young?
To fulfill our values of course good kinship structures will liberate women and men rather than causing the former to be subordinate to the latter, and likewise for other hierarchical or degrading relations. Such hierarchies would violate our values, clearly.
In these matters, we are therefore talking about liberating a side of life where the gain will be removing the features that produce systematic sexism, homophobia, and ageism, plus gaining an array of positive improvements that we can only guess at until we have experimented with more complete proposals for visionary kinship institutions, but which will at the very least include the benefits of additional people reaching their fullest potentials.
It isn't that all problems associated with gender will disappear in a good society, of course, or that all unmet desires or un-manifested capacities will be always and everywhere perfectly addressed without any pain and with maximum benefits for all. Even in a wonderful society, we can confidently predict that there will still be unrequited love. Sex will not lack turmoil. Rape and other violent acts will occur, albeit far less often than now. Social change can't remove the pain of losing friends and relatives to premature death. It can't make all adults equally adept at relating positively with children or with the elderly or vice versa. Uncle Useem and Aunt Arundhati may be a perfect match for our interests, or, perhaps not so much.
What we can reasonably expect and demand, however, is not some kind of utopian elimination of all conflict and pain but rather that new forms of engagement will eliminate the systematic violation of women, gays, children, and the elderly which causes these whole groups to suffer material or social deprivations.
We can demand that innovations eliminate the structural coercion of men and women, of hetero and homosexuals, and of all adults and children into patterns manifesting and preserving systematic violations of solidarity, diversity, equity, and self mangement.
How will all this happen? Not how will we get to this better future, which is a derivative and even more difficult question that we take up later, but what will the institutions defining a vastly better kinship future look like?
Some people have good ideas, no doubt, but I have to admit that I have barely an inkling about this visionary question. Indeed, I can find very little in the way of a proposed answer in the contemporary literature of the left, though in the past people, mainly women, have attempted to provide some visionary sex-gender insights and I would like to mention some of those attempts as being worth trying to elaborate into a gender related vision.
თანამედროვე საზოგადოებებში, რომლებიც ამაღლებენ მამაკაცებს ქალების ნაკლებად გამაძლიერებელ და შემსრულებელ ვარიანტებზე გადაყვანის გზით, რა არის განმსაზღვრელი სტრუქტურები, რომლებიც არსებითად აწარმოებენ სექსისტურ წესრიგს და, შესაბამისად, ღრმად უნდა შეიცვალოს ამ დაკვეთის მოსაშორებლად?
By sexist ordering we of course mean men dominating women in income and circumstance, in opportunities and quality of life, and in control over social outcomes.
სექსიზმი აშკარა ფორმას იღებს მამაკაცებში, რომლებსაც აქვთ დომინანტური და მდიდარი პირობები. ის უფრო დახვეწილ ფორმას იღებს კომუნიკაციის ხანგრძლივი ჩვევებისა და ქცევითი ვარაუდების მეშვეობით. იგი წარმოებულია და რეპროდუცირებულია ინსტიტუტების მიერ, რომლებიც განასხვავებენ მამაკაცებსა და ქალებს, მათ შორის იძულებით, როგორც გაუპატიურებასა და ცემაში, მაგრამ ასევე უფრო დახვეწილად, როგორც ჩანს, ორმხრივად მიღებული როლური განსხვავებები საშინაო ცხოვრებაში, სამუშაოსა და დღესასწაულში, ისევე როგორც კუმულაციური ზემოქმედებით. წარსული სექსისტური გამოცდილება იმის შესახებ, თუ რას ფიქრობენ, სურთ და გრძნობენ ადამიანები და იმაზე, თუ რას აკეთებენ ადამიანები ჩვეულებრივ ან თვით შეგნებულად.
If we want to find the source of gender injustice it stands to reason that we need to determine which social institutions and which roles within those institutions give men and women responsibilities, conditions, and circumstances, that engender motivations, consciousness, and preferences that elevate men above women.
One structure we find in all societies that have sexist hierarchies is that men father but women mother children. That is, we find two quite dissimilar roles which men and women play vis a vis the next generation, each role socially defined and in only a very minor sense biologically fixed.
One conceptually simple structural change in kinship relations would be to eliminate this mothering/fathering differentiation between men and women.
What if instead of women mothering and men fathering, women and men each parented children? What if men and women each related to children in the same fashion, with the same mix of responsibilities and behaviors (called parenting), rather than one gender having almost all the nurturing as well as tending, cleaning, and other maintenance tasks (called mothering), and the other gender having many more decision-based tasks, with one gender being more involved and the other more aloof – and so on?
I am not highly confident that replacing gender defined mothering and fathering with gender blind parenting would alone eliminate all the defining roots of sexism, but I do think this is likely to be a key innovation critical to removing the underlying causes of sexist hierarchies.
This particular idea emerged, or at least I first encountered it in the work of Nancy Chodorow, most prominently in a book titled, "The Reproduction of Mothering" (University of California Press). The book made a case that mothering is a role that is socially and not biologically defined and that as mothers women produce daughters who in turn not only have mothering capacities but desire to mother. "These capacities and needs," Chodorow continues, "are built into and grow out of the mother-daughter relationship itself. By contrast, women as mothers (and men as not mothers) produce sons whose nurturant capacities and needs have been systematically curtailed and repressed."
For Chodorow, the implication was that "the sexual and familial division of labor in which women mother and are more involved in interpersonal affective relationships than men produces in daughters and sons a division of psychological capacities which leads them to reproduce this sexual and familial division of labor."
Chodorow summarized by claiming that "all sex-gender systems organize sex, gender, and babies. A sexual division of labor in which women mother organizes babies and separates domestic and public spheres. Heterosexual marriage, which usually gives men rights in women's sexual and reproductive capacities, and formal rights in children, organizes sex. Both together organize and reproduce gender as an unequal social relation."
So perhaps one feature of a vastly improved society vis a vis gender relations will be that men and women will both parent, with no division between mothering and fathering.
Another very typical structure that comes into question for many feminists thinking about improved sex-gender relations is the nuclear family. This is hard to even define, I think, but has to do with whether the locus of child care and familial involvement is very narrow, such as resting with only two biological parents, or instead involves many more people – perhaps an extended family or friends, community members, etc.
It seems highly unlikely that a good society would have for its gender relations any rules that required a few typical household organizations and family structures such that everyone must abide only those. We wouldn't expect that adults would by law have to live alone or in pairs or in groups in any single or even in any few patterns. The key point is likely to be diversity, on the one hand, and that whatever multiple and diverse patterns exist, each frequently chosen option embodies features that impose gender equity rather than imposing gender hierarchy.
While I don't feel equipped to describe such possible features, I can say that the men and women that are born, brought up, and then themselves bear and bring up new generations in a new and much better society will be full, capable, and confident in their demeanor and also lack differentiations that limit and confine the personality or the life trajectories of either – whether to some kind of narrow feminine or narrow masculine mold.
The same can be said, broadly, about sexuality and intergenerational relations. I don't think we know, or arguably even as yet have a very loose picture of what fully liberated sexuality will be like in all its multitude of preferences and practices or what diverse forms of intergenerational relations adults and their children and elders will enter into. What I think we can say, however, is that in future desirable societies no few patterns will be elevated above all others as mandatory though all widely chosen options will preclude producing in people a proclivity to dominate or to rule, or to subordinate or to obey, based either on sexual orientation or on age (or on any other social or biological characteristic, for that matter).
ჩვენ ძალიან ცოტა წარმოდგენა გვაქვს, თუ რა კონკრეტული სქესის გენდერული ნიმუშები გაჩნდება, გამრავლდება და განუწყვეტლივ განვითარდება უკეთეს მომავალში - მაგალითად, მონოგამიური და არა, ჰეტერო, ჰომო, ან ბისექსუალური, რომელიც მოიცავს ტრანსფორმირებულ ზრუნვის ინსტიტუტებს, ოჯახებს, სკოლებს. და შესაძლოა სხვა პოლიტიკური და სოციალური სივრცეები როგორც ბავშვებისთვის, ასევე მოზრდილებისთვის და მოხუცებისთვის. მაგრამ ჩვენ შეგვიძლია დარწმუნებით გამოვიცნოთ, რომ ყველა ასაკის, სქესის მსახიობები და არა ჩამჩაგვრელ კონსენსუალურ სექსუალურ ურთიერთობებში ჩართული იქნება სტიგმისგან.
All the above is vague and modestly formulated. Will renovated kinship include the broad structural features intimated above? I don't know. I certainly believe future kinship will be very diverse, at any rate. But even without knowing the inner attributes of new institutions for family life and related interactions and while waiting for kinship vision to emerge more fully from feminist thought and practice, I think we can still say some useful things about these domains relations to economics and polity, and vice versa.
ვიზუალური ნათესაობა და საზოგადოება
Kinship institutions are necessary for people to develop and fulfill their sexual and emotional needs, to organize daily life, and to raise new generations of children. But current kinship relations elevate men above women and children, oppress homosexuals, and warp human sexual and emotional potentials.
ჰუმანისტურ საზოგადოებაში ჩვენ აღმოვფხვრით სოციალურად დაწესებულ მჩაგვრელ დეფინიციებს, რათა ყველამ შეძლოს თავისი ცხოვრებით გააგრძელოს საკუთარი არჩევანი, მიუხედავად მისი სქესის, სექსუალური უპირატესობისა და ასაკისა. არ იქნება შრომის არაბიოლოგიურად დაწესებული სექსუალური დანაწილება, მამაკაცები, რომლებიც ასრულებენ ერთ სახის სამუშაოს და ქალები აკეთებენ მეორეს, უბრალოდ, მათი არსებობის გამო, როგორც მამაკაცი და ქალი, არც იქნება იერარქიული როლური დემარკაცია ინდივიდების სექსუალური უპირატესობის მიხედვით. ჩვენ გვექნება გენდერული ურთიერთობები, რომელიც პატივს სცემს როგორც ქალების, ასევე მამაკაცების სოციალურ წვლილს და ხელს უწყობს ფიზიკურად მდიდარ და ემოციურად დამაკმაყოფილებელ სექსუალობას.
მაგალითად, სავარაუდოა, რომ ნათესაობის ახალი ფორმები გადალახავს მონოგამიის მფლობელობაში არსებულ სივიწროვეს და ასევე საშუალებას მისცემს შეინარჩუნოს სიღრმისა და უწყვეტობის შენარჩუნება, რაც მომდინარეობს ხანგრძლივი ურთიერთობებიდან. ახალი ფორმები სავარაუდოდ გაანადგურებს როლების თვითნებურ დაყოფას მამაკაცებსა და ქალებს შორის ისე, რომ ორივე სქესს შეუძლია თავისუფლად აღზარდოს და წამოიწყოს. ისინი, სავარაუდოდ, ბავშვებს აძლევენ ადგილს თვითმართვისთვის, მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ისინი უზრუნველყოფენ ბავშვებს საჭირო მხარდაჭერასა და სტრუქტურას.
But what will make all this possible? My own limited views, as they currently stand, pending more learning and experience, follow.
Obviously women must have reproductive freedom—the freedom to have children without fear of sterilization or economic deprivation, and the freedom not to have children through unhindered access to birth control and abortion. There can be no more compromising on this issue than we can have compromising about private ownership of the means of production. Just as private ownership abrogates the rights of employees to control and direct their laboring capacities, denial of birth control and abortion abrogates the rights of women to control and manage their reproductive capacities and thereby their lives in general.
მაგრამ ფემინისტურმა ნათესაურმა ურთიერთობებმა ასევე უნდა უზრუნველყოს, რომ ბავშვის აღზრდის როლები არ ასხვავებენ ამოცანებს სქესის მიხედვით და არსებობს ტრადიციული წყვილების, მარტოხელა მშობლების, ლესბოსელებისა და გეი მშობლების მხარდაჭერა და უფრო რთული, მრავალჯერადი აღზრდის ღონისძიებები. ყველა მშობელს უნდა ჰქონდეს მარტივი წვდომა მაღალი ხარისხის დღის მოვლის, მოქნილი სამუშაო საათებისა და მშობლის შვებულების ვარიანტებზე. საქმე იმაშია, რომ არ გავათავისუფლოთ ბავშვების აღზრდის მშობლებს შემდეგი თაობის გადაცემით უყურადღებო სააგენტოებზე, რომლებიც ძირითადად დაკომპლექტებულია ქალებით (ან თუნდაც ქალებით და მამაკაცებით), რომლებსაც დაბალი სოციალური პატივისცემა აქვთ. იდეა არის ბავშვის აღზრდის სტატუსის ამაღლება, ბავშვებსა და უფროსებს შორის ძალიან პერსონალიზებული ურთიერთობის წახალისება და ამ ურთიერთქმედების პასუხისმგებლობის თანასწორად განაწილება მამაკაცებსა და ქალებს შორის და მთელ საზოგადოებაში.
ბოლოს და ბოლოს, რომელი სოციალური ამოცანა შეიძლება იყოს უფრო მნიშვნელოვანი, ვიდრე მომავალი თაობის მოქალაქეების აღზრდა? მაშ, რა შეიძლება იყოს უფრო ირაციონალური, ვიდრე პატრიარქალური იდეოლოგიები, რომლებიც უარყოფენ მათ, ვინც ამ კრიტიკულ სოციალურ როლს ასრულებენ იმ სტატუსს, რომელიც მათ იმსახურებენ? სასურველ საზოგადოებაში ნათესაური საქმიანობა არა მხოლოდ უფრო სამართლიანად უნდა იყოს მოწყობილი, არამედ ამ საქმიანობის სოციალური შეფასებაც უნდა გამოსწორდეს.
Feminism should also embrace a liberated vision of sexuality respectful of individual's inclinations and choices, whether homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, monogamous, or non-monogamous. Beyond respecting human rights, the exercise and exploration of different forms of sexuality by consenting partners provides a variety of experiences that can benefit all. In a humanist society that has eliminated oppressive hierarchies, sex can be pursued solely for emotional, physical, and spiritual pleasure and development, or, of course, as part of loving relationships. Experimentation to these ends will likely not merely be tolerated, but appreciated.
ჩვენ გვჭირდება გენდერული ურთიერთობების ხედვა, რომელშიც ქალები აღარ არიან დაქვემდებარებულნი და ნახევარი სახეობის ნიჭი და ინტელექტი საბოლოოდ თავისუფალია. ჩვენ გვჭირდება ხედვა, რომელშიც მამაკაცებს შეუძლიათ თავისუფლად აღზარდონ, ბავშვობა არის თამაშის დრო და მზარდი პასუხისმგებლობა დამოუკიდებელი სწავლის შესაძლებლობით, მაგრამ არა შიშით, და რომელშიც მარტოობა არ იპყრობს როგორც მანკიერებას, რომლის სახელურიც ყოველი წლის გავლისას იბრუნებს.
A worthy kinship vision will reclaim living from the realm of habit and necessity to make it an art form we are all capable of practicing and refining. But there is no pretense that all this can be achieved over night. Nor is there reason to think a single kind of partner-parenting institution is best for all. While the contemporary nuclear family, particularly if it is the overwhelmingly present living pattern or at least the most admired, has proven all too compatible with patriarchal norms, a different kind of nuclear family will no doubt evolve along with a host of other kinship forms as people experiment with how to achieve the goals of feminism.
ეკონომიკა და ქალები და მამაკაცები
Capitalist economics is more subtle than some critical analysts think vis a vis women and men. There is, in fact, nothing in the defining institutions of capitalism–private ownership of productive property, corporate divisions of labor, authoritative decision making, and markets–that even notices much less differentiates and hierarchically arrays men and women due to a strictly economic dynamic and logic. On the other hand, if a society's sex gender system produces a differentiation between men and women, capitalist economy will not ignore that reality but will, indeed, accommodate it or even co-reproduce it, as discussed in Part One.
Thus, if men and women are arrayed by familial and other kinship relations so that the former have expectations of relative dominance vis a vis the latter, capitalist economy will operate in light of this situation.
Suppose an employer seeks to hire a manager. Even if the workforce is male and a woman and a man apply, and the woman has better credentials and is more suited to the actual tasks involved, nonetheless in a sexist society the man is far more likely to get the job–and this is true even if the employer has no gender biases at all.
The reason is because the employer needs the workforce to feel obedient and subordinate to the manager, and needs the manager to feel authoritative and superior to the workforce and it is far less likely for this pattern to emerge against the preconceived sexual orderings of society than it is for the sought pattern to emerge in accord with those orderings.
In other words, the corporate division of labor utilizes rather than trying to run against the gender hierarchy established by familial and kinship relations. It places men above women rather than ignoring the instructions emanating from kinship.
ანალოგიურად, ანაზღაურების ნიმუშები ასახავს დიფერენციალურ გარიგების ძალას, რომელსაც სექსიზმი აკისრებს მამაკაცებსა და ქალებს. მამაკაცები, ყველა სხვა თანაბარი, შეძლებენ მიიღონ მეტი ანაზღაურება ერთი და იგივე სამუშაოსთვის, ვიდრე ქალები, იმის გამო, რომ მფლობელები იყენებენ დაქვემდებარებულ პოზიციებს და ქალების ნაკლები ვაჭრობის ძალას.
These are the minimal accommodations of capitalist economies to sexist kinship relations. Capitalism's hierarchies don't challenge and largely incorporate gender hierarchies. Women disproportionately occupy subordinate positions. Women earn less. There emerge the distressing details including the tremendous incidence of female poverty, ill health, and rape and other violence that we all by now know about.
It is important to realize that there is, however, a deeper impact of the field of force of sexist hierarchy on economic relations. The styles and patterns of male and female behavior produced by a patriarchal sex gender system can impose on economic roles so that the latter begin to literally incorporate the features of the former rather than only accommodating or exploiting them.
In other words, women's economic jobs can take on attributes of nurturance and care giving and maintenance which are in no sense required by or even entirely logical in light of only economic dictates, and similarly for men's roles taking on male patterns also imposed by kinship definitions even contrary to purely economic logic.
In this case we will see jobs in the economy that both reflect and very importantly actively reproduce male and female behavior imposed by a patriarchal sex gender system. The economy then becomes complicit in reproducing sexism. Thus, as Batya Weinbaum points out in the book Curious Courtship of Women's Liberation and Socialism, "
Parecon და Parpolity-ის გავლენა
In parecon, however, reproduction of sexist relations emanating from a patriarchal sex gender system disappears. It isn't just that a participatory economy works nicely alongside a liberated kinship sphere. It is that a parecon precludes or at least militates against non-liberated relations among men and women. Parecon is in contradiction to sexism.
Parecon არ მისცემს მამაკაცებს შედარებით უფრო გაძლიერებულ სამუშაოს ან უფრო მეტ შემოსავალს, ვიდრე ქალები, რადგან ის ვერ უზრუნველყოფს ასეთ უპირატესობებს რომელიმე ჯგუფს სხვასთან შედარებით.
Balanced job complexes and self management need and seek adults able to engage in decisions and to undertake creative empowering labor, regardless of gender or any other biological or social attribution.
There is no process of a parecon abiding hierarchies born in gender relations because there are no hierarchies in a parecon that can abide it. Women cannot earn less than men, nor have jobs that are less empowering, nor have less say over decisions.
But what about household labor? Many feminists will at this point wonder, "parecon claims to remove the differentiation at work and in income required by contemporary sexism, but is household labor part of the economy? Why or why not?"
My inclination is to say that there is no one right answer to this question, just as for most other questions beyond issues of the defining economic relations.
In other words, I can imagine a society that treats household labor of diverse types as part of its participatory economy and I can imagine one that doesn't. With my current state of understanding, I would prefer, myself, the latter type, for a few reasons. But neither choice is ruled out or made inevitable, I think, purely by the logic of parecon.
Beyond that logical openness, however, I tend to think household labor shouldn't be considered part of the economy to be subject to the norms of productive labor with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, etc.
First I think this because I just don't think nurturing and raising the next generation is like producing a shirt, stereo, scalpel, or spyglass. There is something fundamentally distorting, to my thinking, about conceptualizing child care and work place production as being the same type of social activity.
The second main reason I think household labor should not be counted as part of economic production is that the fruits of household labor are largely enjoyed by the producer him or herself. Should I be able to spend more time on household design and maintenance and receive more remuneration as a result? If so, I get the output of the work and I then get more income too. This is different than other work and it seems to me that changing the design of my living room or keeping up my garden is more like consumption rather than it is like production.
Suppose I like to play the piano, or to build model airplanes, or whatever. The activity I engage in for my hobby has much in common with work but we call it consumption because I do it under my own auspices and for myself. What we call work, in contrast, is what we do under the auspices of workers councils to produce outputs that are enjoyed by people other than just ourselves.
Is there a problem in saying that because caring for and raising children is fundamentally different in kind than producing cars or screwdrivers and in saying that maintaining a household is different in its social relations and benefits than working in a factory, and deducing that on these bases we shouldn't count household labor as work to be remunerated and occur under the auspices of parecon's workplace institutions?
I guess if we think it is impossible to have a transformation of sex-gender relations themselves then there is a problem, yes. If the norms and structures of households and living units are highly sexist, and if a parecon doesn't incorporate household labor as part of the economy and subject to its norms, then household labor will be done overwhelmingly by women and will as a result reduce their leisure or their time for other pursuits relative to men.
But why assume that? Why shouldn't it be that transformed norms for household labor are produced by a transformation of sex gender relations themselves, rather than by calling household labor part of the economy?
Take it in reverse. If this were a book about feminism and the rest of society and if I had mapped out a feminist sex-gender vision, I don't think many people would ask whether we can count the workplace as a household so that it gets the benefits of the innovative relations that new families and living units have. We would assume, instead, that there would need to be a revolution in the economy, not just in kinship, and we would rely on the former for the chief redefinitions of life at work even as we also anticipated and required that the economy abide and even abet the gains in kinship, and even as we worked to ensure that the gains of each meshed compatibly with the other.
In any event, clearly a parecon militates against sexism because on the one hand it would have no reason to and even could not incorporate sexist hierarchies, and on the other hand it empowers and remunerates women in a manner that precludes there being easily subordinated in any other realm.
The situation with the polity is even more simple and straightforward. Of course legislative and other structures in no way favor one gender versus another. And obviously laws must be consistent with feminist kinship, as feminist kinship must nurture and socialize people capable of participatory in self managing political relations. So the polity will have laws, constitutional and otherwise, guaranteeing the character of political relations is consistent with and even reproductive of the feminist benefits of new kinship relations, and vice versa.
Perhaps it is the paucity of my understanding showing, but other than in direct analogy to the above discussion, I honestly don't see a deeper relation of economics or politics and sexuality. If there is homophobia or other sexual hierarchies in a society, and if the economy is capitalist, then the economy will to the extent owners are able to do so exploit whatever differentials in bargaining power they are handed and likewise a typically top down polity will at least reflect them and often exacerbate them. Beyond this, however, the capitalist economy and any authoritarian polity may also incorporate gay and straight behavior patterns into economic roles, consumption patterns, etc. With parecon and parpolity, however, no exploitation of sexual difference is even possible much less enacted in the economy because there is one norm of remuneration and one logic of labor definition that applies to everyone which by their very definition foreclose options of hierarchy, while the polity derives from and thus reflects and protects the will of men and women schooled by feminist relations.
More positively, it seems to me that whatever liberated sexuality will mean in a future society it can only be hastened and abetted by economic and political relations that bestow on actors self managing power and just allocations thereby tending to generate actors expecting to be creative, initiating, and self managing in other spheres of their lives than just the economic.
In other words, what healthy sexuality requires of an economy and polity to be consistent and even nurturant of its outcomes a parecon can and automatically does deliver–people prepared to partake of life fully and equally to others, utilizing their capacities, enjoying dignity and equity of conditions, and self managing their options.
What about intergenerational conflict? Whereas capitalism will exploit age differentials for profit via remuneration for the young and old reduced due to these constituencies’ reduced bargaining power and will take advantage of different capacities related to age differences for exploitative divisions of labor and will rush premature labor entry or slow warranted labor withdrawal compared to humane choices, again for exploitative reasons, a parecon will not only not promote humane behaviors but will literally make their obverse impossible due to being contrary to defining parecon norms and structures. Similarly a parpolity will likewise protect and incorporate the will of people of all ages, as self management permits nothing less.
Societies will decide the role of the elderly, retirement ages, etc. and likewise for young people's entry into economic and political responsibility. While familiar and other extra-economic intergenerational relations will certainly not be governed solely by economic or political impositions and will arise, instead, due to a host of variables including new kinship and gender forms, the fact that a parecon and a parpolity require developed and fully participatory and self managing actors imposes on life more generally a respect for all actors and gives all actors material equality and behavioral wherewithal and habits contrary to any kind of subordination emanating from any other of society's institutions.
We don't yet know what liberating gender, sexual, and intergenerational relations will be like but we can say parecon and parpolity would appear likely to be quite compatible and even nurturing of them, just as they would nurture and socialize young people into preparedness for self managing economic and political life. Before long hopefully further kinship vision will exist and this claim and parecon and parpolity – along with feminist kinship – can be further elaborated, tested, or refined, as need be.
ZNetwork ფინანსდება მხოლოდ მისი მკითხველების გულუხვობით.
შემოწირულობა