Chapter Ten: Via Feminism to Parkinship
This is a draft of chapter ten of a book in process titled Fanfare bakeng sa Bokamoso.
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.
Seo re ka se lebellang le ho se batla, leha ho le joalo, ha se mofuta o itseng oa ho felisa likhohlano le bohloko empa ho e-na le hoo ke hore mefuta e mecha ea boitlamo e tla felisa tlōlo e hlophisitsoeng ea basali, basodoma, bana le maqheku e bakang lihlopha tsena kaofela hore li be teng. ho hloka lintho tse bonahalang kapa sechabeng.
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.
Lichabeng tsa sejoale-joale tse phahamisang banna ka ho fa basali likhethong tse sa ba feng matla le tse sa khotsofalang, ke libopeho life tse hlahisang taelo ea thobalano, ka hona li hloka ho fetoloa ka botebo ho tlosa taelo eo?
Ka ho laela ka thobalano, ha e le hantle re bolela banna ba laolang basali ka chelete le maemo, menyetla le boleng ba bophelo, le ho laola liphello tsa sechaba.
Khethollo ea botona le botšehali e bonahala ho banna ba nang le maemo a phahameng le a ruileng. Ho nka mokhoa o poteletseng haholoanyane ka mekhoa ea nako e telele ea puisano le maikutlo a boitšoaro. E hlahisoa le ho hlahisoa hape ke mekhatlo e khethollang banna le basali, ho kenyeletsoa ka likhoka, joalo ka petong le ho shapuoa, empa hape le ka mokhoa o poteletseng ka seo ho bonahalang eka ke liphapang tse amohelehang bophelong ba lapeng, mosebetsing le moketeng, hammoho le ka litlamorao tse ntseng li eketseha. liphihlelo tsa nakong e fetileng tsa batho ba bong bo fapaneng mabapi le seo batho ba se nahanang, ba se lakatsang, le maikutlo a bona, le seo batho ba itloaetsang ho se etsa kapa bona ba itlhokomela.
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.
Sebopeho se seng seo re se fumanang lichabeng tsohle tse nang le maemo a khethollo ea thobalano ke hore banna ke bo-ntate empa basali ba nang le bana. Ke hore, re fumana likarolo tse peli tse sa ts'oaneng tseo banna le basali ba li bapalang ho latela moloko o latelang, karolo e 'ngoe le e 'ngoe e hlalosoang ke sechaba le ka kutloisiso e nyane haholo ea baeloji.
Phetoho e le 'ngoe e bonolo ea moralo likamanong tsa malapa e ka ba ho felisa phapang ena ea bo-mme / ntate pakeng tsa banna le basali.
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.
Khopolo ena e khethehileng e ile ea hlaha, kapa bonyane ke ile ka kopana le eona pele mosebetsing oa Nancy Chodorow, ea hlahelletseng haholo bukeng e nang le sehlooho se reng, "The Reproduction of Mothering" (University of California Press). Buka ena e ile ea etsa taba ea hore ho ba 'mè ke karolo e hlalosoang ke sechaba, eseng ka tlhaho, le hore basali ba tsoala barali bao le bona ba se nang bokhoni ba ho ba le bo-'m'e feela empa ba lakatsa ho ba le bo-'m'e. "Bokhoni bona le litlhoko tsena," Chodorow o tsoela pele, "li hahiloe le ho hōla kamanong ea 'mè le morali ka boeona. Ka lehlakoreng le leng, basali joaloka bo-'mè (le banna e se bo-'mè) ba hlahisa bara bao matla le litlhoko tsa bona tsa tlhokomelo li fokolitsoeng ka mokhoa o hlophisehileng. hatelloa."
Bakeng sa Chodorow, se boleloang e ne e le hore "karohano ea mosebetsi oa thobalano le ea malapa moo bo-'mè ba amehang haholo likamanong tsa likamano tsa botona le botšehali ho feta banna, e hlahisa karohano ea matla a kelello ho barali le ho bara, e leng se ba lebisang ho hlahisa karohano ena ea thobalano le ea malapa. mosebetsi."
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."
Ka hona, mohlomong tšobotsi e ’ngoe ea sechaba se ntlafetseng haholo mabapi le likamano tsa botona le botšehali e tla ba hore banna le basali e tla ba batsoali ka bobeli, ho se na karohano pakeng tsa bo-’mè le bo-ntate.
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).
Re na le maikutlo a fokolang haholo a hore na ho tla hlaha mekhoa efe e khethehileng ea bong-bong, ho ata, le ho tsoela pele ho hōla nakong e tlang e molemo - mohlala, ho ba le molekane a le mong eseng, hetero, homo, kapa batho ba bong bo fapaneng, le ho kenyelletsa mekhatlo e fanang ka tlhokomelo e fetotsoeng, malapa, likolo. , mohlomong le libaka tse ling tsa lipolotiki le tsa sechaba bakeng sa bana hammoho le batho ba baholo le batho ba hōlileng. Empa re ka hakanya ka kholiseho hore batšoantšisi ba lilemo tsohle, banna le basali, le ba kopanelang likamanong tsa thobalano tse sa hatellang ba tla lokoloha sekhobong.
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.
Leloko la Pono le Sechaba
Mekhatlo ea malapa e hlokahala hore batho ba ntlafatse le ho phethahatsa litlhoko tsa bona tsa thobalano le tsa maikutlo, ho hlophisa bophelo ba letsatsi le letsatsi, le ho hōlisa meloko e mecha ea bana. Empa likamano tsa hona joale tsa likamano tsa botona le botšehali li phahamisa banna ho feta basali le bana, li hatella basodoma, 'me li sotha matla a batho a ho kopanela liphate le maikutlong.
Sechabeng sa batho re tla felisa litlhaloso tse hatellang tse behiloeng ke sechaba e le hore motho e mong le e mong a phehelle bophelo ba hae kamoo a khethang, ho sa tsotellehe hore na ke ba bong bofe, khetho ea thobalano le lilemo. Ha ho na ho ba le karohano ea mesebetsi ea thobalano e sa beheng ka tlhaho le banna ba etsang mofuta o mong oa mosebetsi le basali ba etsang o mong ka lebaka la ho ba banna le basali, leha e le hore ho ke ke ha e-ba le karolo ea maemo a phahameng a khethollo ea batho ho latela khetho ea thobalano. Re tla ba le likamano tsa botona le botšehali tse hlomphang litlatsetso sechabeng tsa basali hammoho le banna, le tse khothalletsang likamano tsa botona le botšehali tse matlafatsang 'meleng le tse khotsofatsang maikutlong.
Ka mohlala, ho ka etsahala hore mefuta e mecha ea kamano e tla hlola bofokoli ba ho ba le molekane a le mong ha e ntse e lumella ho boloka botebo le tsoelopele e tlisoang ke likamano tse tšoarellang. Mefuta e mecha e ka 'na ea senya likarohano tse sa reroang tsa mesebetsi pakeng tsa banna le basali e le hore ba batona le ba batšehali ba lokolohe ho hōlisa le ho qala. Mohlomong ba tla fa bana sebaka sa ho itaola joalo ka ha ba fana ka tšehetso le sebopeho seo bana ba se hlokang.
Empa ke eng e tla etsa hore see sohle se khonehe? Maikutlo a ka a fokolang, joalo ka ha a ntse a eme, a ntse a emetse ho ithuta le boiphihlelo bo bongata, a latela.
Ho hlakile hore basali ba tlameha ho ba le tokoloho ea ho ba le bana—tokoloho ea ho ba le bana ntle le tšabo ea ho nyopa kapa ho amohuoa moruo, le tokoloho ea ho se be le bana ka mokhoa o sa sitisoeng oa ho thibela pelehi le ho ntša mpa. Ho ka se be le ho sekisetsa tabeng ena ho feta kamoo re ka bang le ho sekisetsa mabapi le beng ba poraefete ba mekhoa ea tlhahiso. Joalo ka ha botho ba poraefete bo hlakola litokelo tsa basebetsi tsa ho laola le ho tsamaisa matla a bona a ho sebetsa, ho hanoa ka thibelo ea bokhachane le ho ntšoa ha mpa ho hlakola litokelo tsa basali tsa ho laola le ho laola bokhoni ba bona ba ho ba le bana, ka hona, bophelo ba bona ka kakaretso.
Empa likamano tsa likamano tsa basali li tlameha hape ho netefatsa hore mesebetsi ea ho holisa bana ha e arole mesebetsi ho ea ka bong le hore ho na le tšehetso bakeng sa banyalani ba setso, batsoali ba se nang balekane, botsoali ba basodoma le bosodoma, le litokisetso tse rarahaneng haholoanyane tsa botsoali. Batsoali bohle ba tlameha ho ba le phihlello e bonolo ea tlhokomelo ea letsatsi le letsatsi ea boemo bo holimo, lihora tse bonolo tsa mosebetsi, le likhetho tsa matsatsi a phomolo a batsoali. Taba hase ho lokolla batsoali tabeng ea ho hōlisa bana ka ho fetisetsa moloko o latelang mekhatlong e sa tsotelleng e nang le basebetsi haholo-holo ke basali (kapa esita le basali le banna) ba nkeloang tlaase sechabeng. Maikutlo ke ho phahamisa boemo ba kholiso ea bana, ho khothaletsa likamano tsa motho ka mong lipakeng tsa bana le batho ba baholo, le ho aba boikarabelo ba litšebelisano tsena ka ho lekana pakeng tsa banna le basali le sechabeng sohle.
Ha e le hantle, ke mosebetsi ofe oa sechaba o ka bang bohlokoa ho feta ho hōlisa moloko o tlang oa baahi? Joale ke eng e ka bang e sa utloahaleng ho feta menahano ea bapatriareka e latolang ba phethang karolo ee ea bohlokoa sechabeng boemo boo ba bo tšoanelang? Sechabeng se lakatsehang, mosebetsi oa kamano ha oa lokela ho hlophisoa feela ka ho lekana, empa tlhahlobo ea sechaba ea mosebetsi ona e tlameha ho lokisoa hape.
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.
Re hloka pono ea likamano tsa botona le botšehali tseo ho tsona basali ba seng ba le tlas'a maemo a tlaase 'me litalenta le bohlale ba halofo ea mefuta e lokolohile qetellong. Re hloka pono eo banna ba lokolohileng ho e hōlisa, bongoana ke nako ea ho bapala le ho eketsa boikarabelo ka monyetla oa ho ithuta ka boithaopo empa e se tšabo, le moo bolutu bo sa tšoarelleng e le moetsalibe eo molamu oa hae o fetohang ha selemo le selemo se feta.
Pono e loketseng ea kamano e tla khutlisa ho phela sebakeng sa tloaelo le tlhokahalo ho e etsa mofuta oa bonono oo bohle re khonang ho o etsa le ho o hloekisa. Empa ha ho na boikaketsi ba hore sena sohle se ka finyelloa ka bosiu bo le bong. Hape ha ho na lebaka la ho nahana hore mofuta o le mong oa setsi sa botsoali ba molekane o molemo ho bohle. Le hoja lelapa la kajeno la nyutlelie, haholo-holo haeba e le mokhoa oa bophelo o teng hona joale kapa o ratoang ka ho fetisisa, o ipakile o lumellana le litloaelo tsa bapatriareka, ha ho pelaelo hore mofuta o fapaneng oa lelapa la nyutlelie o tla iphetola hammoho le mefuta e meng e mengata ea leloko. batho ba etsa liteko ka mokhoa oa ho fihlela sepheo sa botšehali.
Moruo le Basali le Banna
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.
Ka hona, haeba banna le basali ba apesoa ke likamano tsa malapa le tse ling tsa kamano e le hore ba pele ba be le litebello tsa puso e lekanyelitsoeng ho ea ho ea morao, moruo oa bokapitale o tla sebetsa ho latela boemo bona.
A re re mohiri o batla ho hira mookameli. Leha basebetsi e le monna le mosali le monna ba etsa kopo, 'me mosali a e-na le mangolo a nepahetseng a nepahetseng,' me a tšoaneloa ke mesebetsi ea 'nete e amehang, leha ho le joalo sechabeng sa batho ba nang le bong, monna o na le monyetla oa ho fumana mosebetsi - 'me sena ke nnete. leha mohiri a sena leeme ho hang.
Lebaka ke hobane mohiri o hloka hore basebetsi ba ikutloe ba le kutlo le ho ipeha tlas'a mookameli, 'me o hloka hore mookameli a ikutloe a le matla a bile a phahametse basebetsi 'me ho na le monyetla o fokolang oa hore mokhoa ona o hlahe khahlanong le litaelo tsa sechaba tsa thobalano ho feta ke hore mokhoa o batloang o hlahe ho latela litaelo tseo.
Ka mantsoe a mang, karohano ea basebetsi e sebelisa ho e-na le ho leka ho loantšana le bolaoli ba bong bo thehiloeng ke likamano tsa malapa le kamano. E beha banna ka holim'a basali ho e-na le ho iphapanyetsa litaelo tse tsoang ho ba leloko.
Ka mokhoa o ts'oanang, mekhoa ea ho lefa e tla bonts'a matla a fapaneng a lipuisano ao khethollo ea botona le botšehali e e beang ho banna le basali. Banna, lintho tse ling kaofela li lekana, ba tla khona ho fumana moputso o mongata bakeng sa mosebetsi o tšoanang ho feta oa basali, ka lebaka la beng ba bona ba sebelisang maemo a tlaase le matla a fokolang a basali.
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.
Ho bohlokoa ho hlokomela hore, leha ho le joalo, ho na le tšusumetso e tebileng ea matla a bolaoli ba bong bo fapaneng likamanong tsa moruo. Mekhoa le mekhoa ea boitšoaro ba banna le basali e hlahisoang ke tsamaiso ea botona le botšehali ea bapatriareka e ka qobella mesebetsi ea moruo e le hore ba qetellang ba qale ho kenyelletsa likarolo tsa pele ho e-na le ho li amohela kapa ho li sebelisa hampe.
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, "
Kameho ea Parecon le Parpolity
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 e ke ke ea fa banna mosebetsi o matlafatsang kapa chelete e ngata ho feta basali hobane e ke ke ea fana ka melemo e joalo ho sehlopha sefe kapa sefe se amanang le se seng.
Mehaho e leka-lekaneng ea mesebetsi le boitsoaro bo hloka le ho batla batho ba baholo ba khonang ho etsa liqeto le ho etsa mesebetsi e matlafatsang, ho sa tsotelehe bong kapa mofuta ofe kapa ofe oa bophelo kapa sechabeng.
Ha ho na ts'ebetso ea ho latela maemo a maemo a amanang le botona le botšehali hobane ha ho na maemo ho parecon a ka e mamellang. Basali ba ke ke ba fumana moputso o fokolang ho feta oa banna, kapa hona ho ba le mesebetsi e sa ba feng matla, kapa hona ho ba le lentsoe le fokolang mabapi le liqeto.
Empa ho thoe’ng ka mosebetsi oa lelapa? Basali ba bangata ba basali ba tla ipotsa ka nako ena, "parecon e bolela hore e tlosa phapang mosebetsing le chelete e kenang e hlokehang ke khethollo ea botona le botšehali ea mehleng ena, empa na mosebetsi oa malapa ke karolo ea moruo? Hobane'ng kapa hobane'ng?"
Maikutlo a ka ke ho re ha ho na karabo e nepahetseng potsong ena, joalo ka lipotso tse ling tse ngata ntle le litaba tse hlalosang likamano tsa moruo.
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.
Lebaka la bobeli le ka sehloohong leo ke nahanang hore mosebetsi oa lelapa ha oa lokela ho nkoa e le karolo ea tlhahiso ea moruo ke hore litholoana tsa mosebetsi oa malapa li natefeloa haholo ke mohlahisi ka boeena. Na ke lokela ho qeta nako e ngata ke etsa moralo oa lelapa le ho hlokomela ntlo le ho fumana moputso o mongata ka lebaka leo? Haeba ho joalo, ke fumana tlhahiso ea mosebetsi mme le 'na ke fumana chelete e eketsehileng. Sena se fapane le mosebetsi o mong 'me ho bonahala ho' na hore ho fetola moralo oa kamore ea ka ea ho phomola kapa ho boloka serapa sa ka ho tšoana le tšebeliso ho e-na le ho tšoana le tlhahiso.
Ha re re ke rata ho bapala piano, kapa ho aha lifofane tsa mohlala, kapa eng. Mosebetsi oo ke o etsang bakeng sa ho itlosa bolutu o tšoana haholo le mosebetsi empa re o bitsa tšebeliso ea chelete hobane ke o etsa ka boithatelo ba ka le molemong oa ka. Seo re se bitsang mosebetsi, ho fapana le hoo, ke seo re se etsang tlas'a makhotla a basebetsi ho hlahisa litholoana tse thabeloang ke batho ntle le rona feela.
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.
Leha ho le joalo, ho hlakile hore parecon e loantša khethollo ea botona le botšehali hobane ka lehlakoreng le leng e ne e ke ke ea e-ba le lebaka la ho kenyelletsa lihlopha tsa batho ba bong bo fapaneng, 'me ka lehlakoreng le leng e matlafatsa le ho lefa basali ka mokhoa o thibelang ho ba tlas'a maemo leha e le afe. sebaka se seng.
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 e tšehelitsoe ka lichelete feela ka seatla se bulehileng sa babali ba eona.
donate