[OPE-L:2310] the black box of the domestic sphere?

[Gerald Levy <glevy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chris wrote in [OPE-L:2289]:

> Marx seems to have thought of the
> domestic sphere as a 'black box' within the overall capitalist
> reproduction, into which values go and out of which value comes, and, not
> unreasonably, equated them.

You may be right -- Marx didn't really discuss at any length the
conditions whereby the commodity LP is reproduced. My question is: is this
"black box" an adequate theorization of the subject given Marx's aim?

It would seem to me that it would be rather odd for Marx to just assume
a "black box" where the (unpaid labor in the) domestic sphere "just
happens". For instance, in the _Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844_ there was an explicit discussion of the family and marriage in
modern (bourgeois) society.  Also: whereas a "black box" may have been
assumed in classical political economy, it certainly wasn't in Hegelian
theory. Indeed, the subject of the family is explicitly brought into the
analysis immediately prior to the subject of civil society. In Hegel's
scheme, the "ethical substance" has three moments: the family, civil
society, and political constitution (which then serves as a bridge to the
subject of the state) [e.g. see _Hegel's Philosophy of Mind_, OUP, 1971,
Section II, Sub-Section C]. On the other hand, Marx's subject (capitalism)
was different from Hegel's.

Any thoughts? Anyone?

In solidarity, Jerry