I'm lost. Are you guys saying that nature is as socially constructed as anything else? Then it would follow that there's nothing that a given system can alienate us from. Yes?
-------
Well, any specific concept of nature is clearly socially constructed; but that isn't the main point. The main point is that nature simply doesn't exist; the word "nature" is a sort of vague collective noun the best synonym for which is probably "everything."
-------
But we also know that
-- it matters whether you sleep at night or during the day. I worked graveyard; I can vouch for this. -------
What does that have to do with "Nature" as an entity about which sensible propositions can be fromed?
-------
-- it matters whether you breastfeed or bottlefeed a child. -------
Ditto above. -------
-- it matters whether you eat junk food or unprocessed food -------
It makes a difference in the physical condition of a particular individual. What does that have to do with "nature"?
-------
-- there's jet lag
All these examples suggest that there is a natural norm and that straying from it exacts a price.
-------
No evidence that "Nature" is an entity. They are all about physiology, etc. of a particular biological species. Nothing is added except a superstitious zest by tagging on the label, "Nature." -------
Also: "The sooner we discard the vapid notion that one set of social relations is more "natural" than another, the better."
So, there's no difference between having sex for lust/love and having sex for money? -------
That depends on the people involved. It's their call. It's none of our fucking business.
Carrol
???
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu>
shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
> But for another thing, I think it's really weird that anyone buys into
> or perhaps not believing but using language anyway to suggest that
> tastes, desires, emotions, etc. are foundational, fixed and secure in
> some primal way that isn't touched by social relations. So untouched,
> it's in nature. But after all this time, isn't it clear that there is no
> unmediated access to "nature". By the time we claim a "nature" out there
> for us to find and get in touch wich, we've already created "nature" and
> claimed ourselves as somehow separate from it. Clearly "nature" is
> nature for us, and clearly social relations are part of what makes
> nature appear to us as something alien, out there, something that's
> separate from us and with which we must get in touch.
Yes. Putting your arm up a ewe's vagina is just as much a product of social relations as DJing at a NY club or teaching a freshman poetry class or roofing a house. The claim that there is a pure, unmediated nature we need to "get back to" is--ironically--a precipitate of alienation in a capitalist society. The sooner we discard the vapid notion that one set of social relations is more "natural" than another, the better.
Miles ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk