The argument about sexual repression creating civilization and civilization in turn sustaining sexual repression is true of any civilization. There is nothing 'Western' about it. Freud's categories like unconscious, repression, tranference, drive are equally valid (or invalid) for any and every civilization. One could say the same thing about Marx's categories like mode of production, organic composition of capital, ideology etc. I would like to suggest that the entire debate about orientalism is about an ideology and simple inversion of an ideology is not likely to lead us anywhere.
This may appear to be a minor point. However, the claim that Marx (or Freud) belong to the Western civilization, that it is the WEST which is responsible for this and that, is a right-wing Hindu nationalist position. This leads to dubious arguments about 'origins' and 'roots' etc. (Remember the controversy about Sonia Gandhi's origins. All opinion polls in India have consistently shown that most Indians do not think Sonia Gandhi's Italian birth, her faith or the colour of her skin etc. are pertinent to the debates in Indian politics.)
Untouchability practised in India for centuries was no less responsible for'deformation of human character' and the most enlightened representatives of untouchables saw the British Rule as an opportunity to escape from the idiocy of rural life in Medieval India. The British Rule created the possibility of the rule of law, urban life, access to education etc. which was seen by them as a great opportunity to escape from Brahminism (See Jyotiba Phule or Ambedkar in Western India). One could say (following Gandhi) that Indian civilization would equally be 'a good idea'.
Ulhas
----- Original Message ----- From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 4:00 AM Subject: Re: Orientalism Revisited
> > Marx anticipates Freud in the theme of the deformation of humankind's
> character by Western civilization.
> > > yours, rakesh
>
> >I am not sure if there is such a theme in Freud ( or in Marx for that
> >matter).
> >
> >Ulhas
>
> Of course Marx and Freud develop different interpretations of this
deformation.
> But I remember Freud's Civilization and Discontent as clearly as well I
> remember Rawls' Theory of Justice.
>
> At any rate, Ulhas, is such an interpretation of F's Civ and Discontents
> implausible (the limitation of sexual desire, the modification of thanatos
> in order to carry out productive labor, though creating civilization,
tends
> to provoke our discontent, so argued Freud, says the cliffnotes,
> no?--obviously a very different idea from Marx's)
>
> If not for the reasons Krader states, what then do you make of Marx's
study
> of the ethnological notebooks as well as Engels' summary of that research
> in Origin of Family, Patriarchy, and the State?
>
> I gave some of Krader's reasons for his interpretation. Did you disagree
> with anything in particular? Interested to know about the reasons for your
> appreciated skepticism.
>
> yrs, rakesh
>
>
>