Charles thanks for doing this. Only skimmed the essay, know about it really through someone else's work.
>
> "Pregnancy and lesser body strength were the physical bases that made
> social oppression possible - hence the signifcance of liberating
> oneself from the generic alienation via the Pill and abortion in order
> to abolish the specific alienation." (pp. 434-5)
Or was it that until recently the only digestible relatively safe form of food for infants has been breast milk (it surely seems to do magic for the auto immune system). I think this is an important part of Joan Huber's book on the Origins of Gender Inequality, which I want to read soon.
>
> But do I understand your more general question? That Boltanski might be
> guilty of left conservatism through his criticism of the sexual
> revolution, which he sees as "free" from any material basis
Andrew Sayer, following Nancy Fraser, says that exactly because the patriarchal heterosexual family finds no material support in capitalism, gay rights and feminism can be achieved in the here and the now. But I think this leaves as a mystery the the ferocious strength of social opposition, which scars everyday family and personal life.
Of course Boltanski is not saying the following but some do think that capitalism flunks the moral test because it not only fails to protect the 'natural family' it actually provides the technologies, biology and medical entrepreneurs and rights to destroy it.
Capitalism is then critiqued as perverse, decadent. It's an important kind of anti capitalism.
I hear echoes of this reactionary critique in claims that sexual/reproductive revolution has been completely subsumed to the capitalist machinery. I wish Boltanski had been more careful.
Yours, Rakesh
>
> He ends the essay:
>
> "However, these effects are wholly compatible
> with the maintenance of property rights under their present form and
> with
> the expansion of global capitalism. Various indicators even lead one to
> think
> that the effects of total revolution in the domain of reproduction
> might even
> benefit capitalism¢s expansion."
>
> ...or from the abstract:
>
> "On the one hand, there are the social
> concerns and the critiques of capitalism, which, however, are no longer
> ori-
> ented towards total revolution. On the other hand, there are
> expectations that
> are still turned towards total revolution, but have been shifted
> towards the exi-
> gency of a revolution in the order of reproduction and of sexuality
> and, thus,
> have dissociated themselves from the critique of capitalism."
>
> So it seems he thinks the "revival of the social critique" is governed
> by a spirit of accommodation, and the "revival of the artistic
> critique" has been completely subsumed by the capitalist machinery.
>
> Best, Charles
>
>
>
>