[OPE-L] Sexuality, Rationality & Irrationality under Capitalism

[Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry,

Not sure if this topic is worth pursuing, since it hinges on a notion of
rationality which itself is in dispute. A few comments:

My claim is not that people are rational about everything, only "at least"
about the most important issues in their lives (which may admittedly not be
food, sex, a home and a job, though often they are). To avoid the tautology
accusation,

(1) People have to survive (very basic point, this).
(2) People have needs, wants and interests they try to satisfy.
(3) People are social beings, who cannot exist without some cooperation with
others, like it or not.

These three basic aspects of the human condition (obviously not the only
ones) generate a lot of specifically human characteristics already, but -
without going into a more profound analysis of human natures - what I am
interested in here is only purposive/intentional behaviour. Because once you
have that, you can talk about goals and the means to achieve them, and once
you have that, you can talk about "rationality" in terms of a conscious
reflection about the relationship between means and ends, and purposive
action guided - if imperfectly - by that reflection. Hegel knew this. Marx
knew this. Weber knew this.

Elmar Alvater, who is on the whole pretty good on this kind of issue, once
suggested - applying Marx's "two logics" - modern society is a combination
of "rationality of parts and overall irrationality" (regrettably few of his
writings are translated). At the level of individual enterprises and
organisations, rational methods are more or less rigorously applied, but the
overall societal result is irrational, in the sense that it doesn't really
meet the needs/wants/interests of all, or worse, undermines the very
conditions for doing so. In game theory, you can also find plenty paradoxes
of this type. Modern cynics then say, well "shit happens".

One aim of socialism or communism is to create forms of social organisation
which permit individual interests/wants/needs to mesh better with collective
interests/wants/needs, so that the pursuit of individual
interests/wants/needs by some is no longer at the expense of others
("win-win situation", through I do not like that term much, because winning
still implies losing, and therefore competition still lurks in the
background; as with all "new age" concepts, this idea lacks conceptual
rigour, it's more in the nature of a slogan or a half-formed thought). But
anyhow this involves the abolition of class society, so that beneficial
cooperation may triumph over harmful competition, rather than the other way
around. The basic idea is not to preach a morality, but to create the
conditions in practice which permit people to be moral (that is essentially
what I understand by the "Left").

What of sexuality? Well parts of it are irrational, parts are non-rational,
and parts of it are rational (why should the individual be radically
different from the nature of the society of which he is part?), and in
different phases of life, one element no doubt predominates over the others,
for most people. But even if sexuality happens to be rational, this does not
necessarily mean it's necessarily good for people. If we were to
simplistically equate "the rational" with "the good", we would regress back
to queer old Plato, i.e. our thought would regress back to 2,400 years ago.
However about the most important sexual decisions people make in their
lives, people are mostly pretty rational, although you might not like the
values which underpin that rationality, or the results that it has. Out of
that, there emerges a pretty consistent behavioural pattern, flowing from
inclinations and experiences that people have (cf. 1, 2 and 3 above).

The Western bourgeois looks at post-colonial Africa, and he notices a lot of
irrationality. And he preaches abstinence to the Africans, "keep your knees
crossed, and think of the Lord". Wouldn't that be rational? Wouldn't you
rather live, than catch AIDS? This is more a Popperian "logic of
justification", than a logic of discovery, i.e. little attempt is made here
to understand African rationality, the African mindset, the fact, that - for
better or worse - a consciously understood means-ends relationship might
exist, but with a different scale of values and priorities. It's more an
idea, that in "civilised society" people can control their urges (all
evidence notwithstanding), and that controlling your urges is rational,
because it begets a better result. Well, it may do, or it may not, depending
on your stage of life, and on what sort of life it is.

Postmodern culture casts skepticism on the basic practical rationality that
most people have in their daily lives. Maybe that is useful, even
revolutionary, if it lifts people out of the petty rationality of their
humdrum everyday concerns, and injects a broader or deeper meaning into it,
calls things into question. But it is reactionary, if it implies that people
are just too irrational, too stupid, to build a better world for all. Of
course, if people are too irrational and too stupid like that, you can kiss
a better world of any sort goodbye, then it's just a utopia in the bad sense
(cf. Norman Geras's pedestrian "Marx and Human Nature").  But Postmodernism
("the grand narrative that there are no more grand narratives") in reality
lags way behind Marxian thought here. Paul Lafargue wrote a little tract
called "The Right to be Lazy" (1883, the year Karl Marx died), which could
rightfully be called the first postmodern text, insofar as it calls into
question the very foundation of bourgeois rationality and morality
(anarchists would of course dispute that). In that sense, postmodernism is
more like what Russell Jacoby once called "social amnesia". We conveniently
forget, what does not serve our purpose, and invent a past which never
existed (like in that movie, "The Plowman's Lunch"), leaving us with a
""mythical past, and an elusive future" (Furedi's expression).

Jurriaan

Through tunnel vision watch him rant and rave
He says there's life beyond the grave
He lost his slice of the eternal cake
Well, God's in His Heaven, and He's on the take

That's nice (that's nice) that's neat (that's neat)
It's bitter and it's sweet, is it trick and treat
You're talkin' fast, but you're preaching peace

Bits and pieces I remember slightly, it was a long time ago
We had a hot and holy conversation
About the problems of a drunken world
Now a clerical collar chokes at your convictions
You strangle slowly for the old addiction
It's Heaven's army, and you're so professional
But listen closely to this closed confessional

That's nice (that's nice), it's neat (it's neat)
It's bitter and sweet, is it trick and treat
You're talkin' fast, but you're preaching peace

We'd take a recipe for religion
And bring it to the theological kitchen
Mix it up to make our own concoction
Believed in God, but you shake a fist at him
And Ray, does it seem holy, hey Ray, does it seem hard
And Ray, it isn't that easy, for me now

Oh-hoh-hoh, oh-hoh-hoh, oh-hoh-hoh
Oh-hoh-hoh, oh-hoh-hoh, oh-hoh-hoh

You said you spoke to God, and asked a question
You were wonderin' what's the use of it all
He said everybody does what they want to
Provided that it's true, that's all

He said, hey Big G you see there's my problem
I'm not so sure 'bout what's true
He said I'll let you in on my big secret, Ray
The final truth is - there is no truth, and
Na-na-na-na, bop shoo wop shoo wop
Na-na-na-na, Oh-hey-yeah
Na-na-na-na, bop shoo wop shoo wop
That's all.

- Boomtown Rats, Nice 'n' Neat