NRIII
Dr. Nicholas Ruiz III Editor, Kritikos http://intertheory.org -----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 9:21 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] Foucault & Chmsky
bitchlab :
At a more basic level, if one wants to derive a claim about human nature from that statement, then it makes sense to use the entire statement. Thus, it is human nature to dominate and exert power over others and it is human nature to resist that domination. Which would put Foucault squarely in, what? Hobbes' camp? Dunno, but I do think that it would be only telling part of the story to say it's human nature to resist power, thereby leaving out the "why" of power to begin with. If it wasn't 'human nature' to start the process of domination to begin with, what was it?
^^^^^ CB: The fall from the Garden of Eden ? The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State ? Main thing is , since it's not human nature ,it is presumably easier to get rid of it than if it was human nature.
^^^^
(On that note, an older radical feminist theory, perhaps Robin Morgan's, is that male domination began when a group had to defend themselves against an outside force. To do this, they crafted certain social relations to save the group, but they ended up subordinating women. Enjoying this subordination and the power they derived from it (the power to rape and control), Morgan said, men set about to maintain that relation of power and it has been thus ever since. <-- This is why I have said that radical feminists have to revert to "accidents" of history to explain social change.) ^^^^^^^ CB: Here's another speculation. Long,long ago and far away, some men got envious of women having control over the making of the most valuable thing in society : children. So, in the most nfarious act ever, they set about to change the setup.
^^^^^^
Moreover, when one posits human nature to begin with, then you have to ask: what of those who don't appear to behave according to "human nature" -- are they not human
^^^^ CB: Do any natural beings have any natures at all ? Birds might have a main group of activities that derive from their natures, but then some individual birds may break away from that nature. Doesn't mean there is _no_ bird nature at all, just that it's not "unbreakable" nature.
So, there may be human nature, just that it's not utterly unflexible. There is human nature, it's just that it's flexible.
We now see we should "flex" back away from domination.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk