AUT: RE: Fortunati

["cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C25093.267C4C50
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tahir, Harald, Monty,

I want to come back to this a bit.because I think Tahir misses something =
essential here. =20

> This next one, on prostitution from p. 44-45, is more open to
interpretation but certainly contains the idea of prostitution as a =
threat
to capital as I mentioned earlier:
>
> "The division in the female job market between prostitute and
non-prostitute is thus blurring. Entering and leaving the two markets =
has
become far easier than in the past, and prostitution has risen above
capital's optimum levels. The rise in prostitution, coupled with women's
increased absenteeism from housework, is dangerously changing the face =
of
male worker's consumption, where his consumption of housework should not
only be complementary but also fundamental to his consumption of
prostitution work, and vice versa. In response capital has intensified =
its
efforts to regain its quantitative control over the supply of =
prostitution
work. The wave of repression of prostitutes is in reality capital's =
attempt
to re-establish the complementary aspects of the exchange, and to once =
more
place prostitution work in a secondary position to housework in terms of =
the
male worker's quantitative consumption of it."<

Note her discussion of "capital's attempt to re-establish the
complementary aspects of the exchange".  This clearly could not mean =
that
prostitution is liberatory, but that women's struggles, and the =
imbalancing
of the relation between prostitution and housework can cause =
prostitution to
cease to be effective for the reproduction of labor power sexually.  Her
argument is not as one-sided, ideological or essentializing as you make =
it
sound, but is eminently historical and as such is tendential, not =
absolute.
She is not essentializing prostitution as liberatory, but granting that
women's struggles from within certain social relations can threaten the
effectivity of those relations for capital.  This is one way of
understanding the idea that capital's relations are actually human and =
material
relations of struggle, and that they are ongoing and historical products =
of
class struggle, open to transformation instead of closed or fixed.

If this is true, then this imbalancing is up for grabs and capital will =
attempt to 're-balance' the situation to its advantage )or adjust to =
absorb the new forms of relations.)

I would say that a more critical response might engage her tendency to =
treat the state as having its own logic, especially in the last chapter =
where she begins to tie all of this into the idea of the "planner state" =
a la Negri. (p. 173)
_________________________________________________________________________=
_________________________________
On the idea that sexual and racial hierarchies are 'only' historical, =
this seems to me to really devalue both the historicity of the =
capital-labor relation and also the constitutive role of struggle.  =
These divisions are not 'merely' historical as opposed to theoretical.  =
To make this kind of move assumes a dualism between the historical =
movement of struggle and a kind of capital-logic ("necessary in =
theory"), where the logic of capital is somehow outside of the history =
of struggle, as an extraction or an essential nature (eg, the repeatedly =
expressed idea by Tahir, Harald, etc that 'in theory', capital does not =
need these divisions).  'In theory' is a meaningless statement.

Fortunati is not, as I see it, engaged in an excavation of the =
theoretical necessity of the sexual hierarchization of labor, but of its =
practical necessity and historical emergence.  She then attempts to =
grapple with Marx's failure in particular to adequately theorize this =
emergence and its specific forms, as forms of class struggle with a =
dynamic which does not simply replicate non-household, waged labor.  In =
that, her critique of Marx is far more fundamental than it appears at =
first. =20

Unlike in Fortunati's book, there is no mention in any of the posts you =
made that the struggles by women and homesexuals shaped the =
emergence/constitution of existing sexual relations, but rather the =
process is expressed only in terms of 'what capital needs.'  In that =
sense, I think that you have mistaken her theorization of that emergence =
for a theory of the necessity of its specific appearances abstracted =
from its historical emergence and reproduction through struggle.  In =
fact, I felt that she indicated a relative openness in the ways that at =
least part of the labor of reproduction might happen in the future with =
greater sexual equality, as contingent on struggle. =20

I could also see her arguing that you have done exactly what most =
'masculinist' theorizations tend do in relation to the formation of =
these relations, devaluing them as non-class struggles or as secondary =
divisions, in the sense that 'class' becomes synonymous with =
(predominantly male) 'waged labor' in a (predominantly male) =
non-household workplace.  But that is a central part of Fortunati's =
argument, that we have to make reproduction of labor power in the =
household and through sexual reproduction via prostitution central to =
our concepts of class and class struggle, understanding that Marx =
totally misunderstands the dynamic of reproduction.  As such, Monty's =
implied statement that these are not class relations, as constitutive of =
class (that gender and sexuality are class relations in different forms =
or modes of existence) would come under criticism.  So the real thing =
she is trying to deal with theoretically is the practical and historical =
form taken by the reproduction of labor power, as a process mediated by =
sex which has also been in conflict with sexualities that do not =
guarantee that reproduction.  This certainly puts an interesting light =
on women's exclusion from trade unions, certain work categories, etc.

It is worth reading closely her discussion of the difficulties faced by =
capital in regulating unwaged household labor versus waged labor, and =
the inability to impose the kind of direct controls over household labor =
which exist over waged labor.  This is where the importance of the state =
in relation to household/sex workers' bodies and children becomes so
important.  If there is any point where she risks theorizing sexual =
hierarchy as 'necessary' for capital's reproduction, it would be here, =
since women's bodies are seen as the dangerously difficult to control =
and unavoidable point of production of new
workers (dangerous because capital does not own those 'means of =
production', aka women's bodies, and unavoidable because only women can =
get pregnant, carry a baby for nine months and give birth), hence the =
need to limit women's access to reproductive self-control and the =
ability to live without producing more workers (aka having babies and =
being mothers.)  The relative changes in reproductive labor talked about =
by Harald reflect nothing less, according to Fortunati, than women's =
class struggles against capital, especially 1) in the form of the state, =
eg abortion rights, day care, affirmative action, 2) through pressure on =
male (or 'butch') partners for more wages, more time, more freedom of =
movement, etc., and 3) also against sex discrimination in the waged =
workplace and workers organizations in the waged workplace.

Her argument is that the sexualization of labor power through waged and =
non-waged labor, the division of the household/ prostitution and the =
workplace (reproduction versus production) has been an essential part of =
the constitution of the capital-labor relation, and not simply a =
hangover from pre-capitalist patriarchy, which capital can somehow =
dispense with.  I don't think it is a small thing that she takes great =
pains to show that the household is also a workplace where class =
struggle takes place and that this implies a very different reading of =
the history of workers' struggles which goes well beyond a history of =
strikes and insurrections.

I am not convinced that she succeeds, but I think that her point has =
been missed and that has been my argument.

On the empirical points about commodification of housework, I would say =
that it is a point of struggle and capital seems to constantly attempt =
to reimpose the 'traditional' sexualization of reproduction, though it =
may not be able to go as far as it likes.  In that light, to link with =
education matters, a trend in the US has been to enforce more parental =
involvement in education, something which seems destined to guarantee =
that working class students, with less educated families with less time =
to participate, will inevitably suffer.  It has also generally been the =
case that it is mothers who are being expected to take up the slack.  =
This is another way of reorganizing the welfare state with the =
imposition of policing relations and at least where I see it (having a =
teacher in secondary education for a partner), it falls largely to =
women.  The deconstruction of the social welfare aspects of the welfare =
state involve a re-imposition of sexual hierarchies, which explains in =
no small part the dominance of women in "anti-welfare cuts" struggles in =
the U.S.

Cheers,
Chris

ps Something we have not taken up at all but which is relevant is the =
'butch'/'fem' dichotomy in homosexual relationships which reproduces in =
many ways the hetero gender relation (making homosexuality more =
'palatable' to capital), and the validity of the 'butch'/'fem' concepts =
for altered hetero relations.





------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C25093.267C4C50
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Tahir, Harald, Monty,<BR><BR>I want to come back to this a=20
bit.because&nbsp;I think Tahir&nbsp;misses something essential =
here.&nbsp;=20
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt; This next one, on prostitution from p. 44-45, is more open=20
to<BR>interpretation but certainly contains the idea of prostitution as =
a=20
threat<BR>to capital as I mentioned earlier:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; "The =
division in=20
the female job market between prostitute and<BR>non-prostitute is thus =
blurring.=20
Entering and leaving the two markets has<BR>become far easier than in =
the past,=20
and prostitution has risen above<BR>capital's optimum levels. The rise =
in=20
prostitution, coupled with women's<BR>increased absenteeism from =
housework, is=20
dangerously changing the face of<BR>male worker's consumption, where his =

consumption of housework should not<BR>only be complementary but also=20
fundamental to his consumption of<BR>prostitution work, and vice versa. =
In=20
response capital has intensified its<BR>efforts to regain its =
quantitative=20
control over the supply of prostitution<BR>work. The wave of repression =
of=20
prostitutes is in reality capital's attempt<BR>to re-establish the =
complementary=20
aspects of the exchange, and to once more<BR>place prostitution work in =
a=20
secondary position to housework in terms of the<BR>male worker's =
quantitative=20
consumption of it."&lt;<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Note her discussion of "capital's attempt to re-establish=20
the<BR>complementary aspects of the exchange".&nbsp; This clearly could =
not mean=20
that<BR>prostitution is liberatory, but that women's struggles, and the=20
imbalancing<BR>of the relation between prostitution and housework can =
cause=20
prostitution to<BR>cease to be effective for the reproduction of labor =
power=20
sexually.&nbsp; Her<BR>argument is not as one-sided, ideological or=20
essentializing as you make it<BR>sound, but is eminently historical and =
as such=20
is tendential, not absolute.<BR>She is not essentializing prostitution =
as=20
liberatory, but granting that<BR>women's struggles from within certain =
social=20
relations can threaten the<BR>effectivity of those relations for =
capital.&nbsp;=20
This is one way of<BR>understanding the idea that =
capital's&nbsp;relations are=20
actually human and material<BR>relations of struggle, and that they are =
ongoing=20
and historical products of<BR>class struggle, open to transformation =
instead of=20
closed or fixed.<BR><BR>If this is true, then this imbalancing is up for =
grabs=20
and capital will attempt to 're-balance'&nbsp;the situation to its =
advantage )or=20
adjust to&nbsp;absorb the new forms of relations.)<BR><BR>I would say =
that a=20
more critical response might engage her tendency to treat the state as =
having=20
its own logic, especially in the last chapter where she begins to tie =
all of=20
this into the idea of the "planner state" a la Negri. (p. 173)<BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>________________________________________________________________=
__________________________________________</FONT><BR>On=20
the idea that sexual and racial hierarchies are 'only' historical, this =
seems to=20
me to really devalue both the historicity of the capital-labor relation =
and also=20
the constitutive role of struggle.&nbsp; These divisions are not =
'merely'=20
historical as opposed to theoretical.&nbsp; To make this kind of move =
assumes a=20
dualism between the historical movement of struggle and a kind of =
capital-logic=20
("necessary in theory"), where the logic of capital is somehow outside =
of the=20
history of struggle, as an extraction or an essential nature (eg, the =
repeatedly=20
expressed idea by Tahir, Harald, etc that 'in theory', capital does not =
need=20
these divisions).&nbsp; 'In theory' is a meaningless =
statement.<BR><BR>Fortunati=20
is not, as I see it,&nbsp;engaged in an excavation of the theoretical =
necessity=20
of the sexual hierarchization of labor, but of its practical necessity =
and=20
historical emergence.&nbsp; She then attempts to grapple with Marx's =
failure in=20
particular to adequately theorize this emergence and its specific forms, =
as=20
forms of class struggle with a dynamic which does not simply replicate=20
non-household,&nbsp;waged labor.&nbsp; In that, her critique of Marx is =
far more=20
fundamental than it appears at first.&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Unlike in Fortunati's book, there is no mention in any of the posts =
you=20
made that the struggles by women and homesexuals shaped the=20
emergence/constitution of existing sexual relations, but rather the =
process is=20
expressed only in terms of 'what capital needs.'&nbsp; In that sense, I =
think=20
that you have mistaken her theorization of that emergence for a theory =
of the=20
necessity of its specific appearances abstracted from its historical =
emergence=20
and reproduction through struggle.&nbsp; In fact, I felt that she =
indicated a=20
relative openness in the ways that at least part of&nbsp;the labor of=20
reproduction might happen in the future with greater sexual equality, as =

contingent on struggle.&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I could also see her arguing that&nbsp;you have done exactly what=20
most&nbsp;'masculinist' theorizations&nbsp;tend do in relation to the =
formation=20
of these relations, devaluing them as non-class struggles or as =
secondary=20
divisions, in the sense that 'class' becomes synonymous with =
(predominantly=20
male) 'waged labor' in a (predominantly male) non-household =
workplace.&nbsp; But=20
that is&nbsp;a central part of&nbsp;Fortunati's argument, that we have =
to make=20
reproduction of labor power in the household and through sexual =
reproduction via=20
prostitution central to&nbsp;our&nbsp;concepts of&nbsp;class and=20
class&nbsp;struggle, understanding that Marx totally misunderstands the =
dynamic=20
of reproduction.&nbsp; As such, Monty's implied statement that these are =

not&nbsp;class relations, as constitutive of class (that gender and =
sexuality=20
are class relations in different forms or modes of existence) would come =
under=20
criticism.&nbsp; So the real thing she is trying to deal with =
theoretically is=20
the practical and historical form taken by the reproduction of labor=20
power,&nbsp;as a process mediated by sex&nbsp;which has also been in =
conflict=20
with sexualities that do not guarantee that reproduction.&nbsp; This =
certainly=20
puts an interesting light on women's exclusion from trade unions, =
certain work=20
categories, etc.<BR><BR>It is worth reading closely her discussion of =
the=20
difficulties faced by capital in regulating unwaged household labor =
versus waged=20
labor, and the inability to impose the kind of direct controls over =
household=20
labor which exist over waged labor.&nbsp; This is where the importance =
of the=20
state in relation to household/sex workers' bodies and&nbsp;children =
becomes=20
so<BR>important.&nbsp; If there is any point where she risks theorizing =
sexual=20
hierarchy as 'necessary' for capital's reproduction, it would be here, =
since=20
women's bodies are seen as the dangerously difficult&nbsp;to control and =

unavoidable point of production of new<BR>workers (dangerous because =
capital=20
does not own those 'means of production', aka women's bodies, and =
unavoidable=20
because&nbsp;only women can get pregnant, carry a&nbsp;baby for nine=20
months&nbsp;and give birth), hence the need to&nbsp;limit women's access =
to=20
reproductive self-control and the ability to live without producing more =
workers=20
(aka having babies and being mothers.)&nbsp; The relative changes=20
in&nbsp;reproductive labor&nbsp;talked about by Harald reflect nothing =
less,=20
according to Fortunati,&nbsp;than women's class struggles against =
capital,=20
especially 1) in the form of the state, eg abortion rights, day care,=20
affirmative action,&nbsp;2) through pressure on&nbsp;male (or=20
'butch')&nbsp;partners&nbsp;for more wages, more time, more freedom of =
movement,=20
etc.,&nbsp;and 3)&nbsp;also against sex discrimination in the=20
waged&nbsp;workplace and workers organizations in the waged=20
workplace.<BR><BR>Her argument is that the sexualization of labor power =
through=20
waged and non-waged labor, the division of the household/ prostitution =
and the=20
workplace (reproduction versus production) has been an essential part of =
the=20
constitution of the capital-labor relation, and not simply a hangover =
from=20
pre-capitalist patriarchy, which capital can&nbsp;somehow dispense =
with.&nbsp; I=20
don't think it is a small thing that she takes great pains to show that =
the=20
household is also a workplace where class struggle takes place and that =
this=20
implies a very different reading of the history of workers' struggles =
which goes=20
well beyond a history of strikes and insurrections.<BR><BR>I am not =
convinced=20
that she succeeds, but I think that her point has been missed and that =
has been=20
my argument.<BR><BR>On the empirical points about commodification of=20
housework,&nbsp;I&nbsp;would say&nbsp;that it is a point of struggle and =
capital=20
seems to constantly attempt to reimpose the 'traditional' sexualization =
of=20
reproduction, though it may not be able to go as far as it likes.&nbsp; =
In that=20
light, to link with education matters, a trend in the US has been to =
enforce=20
more parental involvement in education, something which seems destined =
to=20
guarantee that working class students, with less educated families with =
less=20
time to participate, will inevitably suffer.&nbsp; It has also generally =
been=20
the case that it is mothers who are being expected to take up the =
slack.&nbsp;=20
This is another way of reorganizing the welfare state with the =
imposition of=20
policing relations and at least where I see it (having a teacher in =
secondary=20
education for a partner), it falls largely to women.&nbsp; The =
deconstruction of=20
the social welfare aspects of the welfare state involve a re-imposition =
of=20
sexual hierarchies, which explains in no small part the dominance of =
women in=20
"anti-welfare cuts" struggles in the =
U.S.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Chris<BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>ps Something we have not taken up at all but which =
is relevant=20
is the 'butch'/'fem' dichotomy in homosexual relationships which =
reproduces in=20
many ways the hetero gender relation (making homosexuality more =
'palatable' to=20
capital), and the validity of the 'butch'/'fem' concepts for =
altered&nbsp;hetero=20
relations.</FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C25093.267C4C50--




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---