Capitalism need not encourage change. Capitalism could be appropriated
(harnessed is a better term) to serve "conservative" interests. But then
again "conservatism" is being seen through "liberal" lens. In the US
conservatism is closely tied to capitalism and in non-western societies
with pre-capitalist relations, or whatever is left of it. In other
words, feminism as praxis must account for these variations
(articulations, distortions, or plain simple "unfolding" of social
formations). This means that feminist praxis will also vary, being
subject to local political economy. Therefore, one set of feminist
progressivist ideas need not be so in another context simply because
there is a mismatch between institutions and what social forces actually
demand. Can this be interpreted as a "disagreement."
Anthony D'Costa
On Thu, 3 Nov 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
> Phil, for pen-l or pkt to discuss issues of gender and patriarchy,
> it is necessary that someone post some opinion with which people
> disagree on those subjects. To my mind, the role of gender &
> patriarchy is quite important in our political economy. No one
> seems to deny this.
>
> How about a controversial opinion: though both capitalism and
> patriarchy (not to mention relations of ethnic or racial dominance)
> are important to explaining how our social formation operates,
> capitalism represents the dynamic force encouraging change,
> while patriarchy is more conservative. Capitalism shakes up
> traditional patriarchy, encouraging struggle against that
> tradition which can lead to either improvements in women's
> lot or regression...
>
> I hope someone disagrees.
>
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
> 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
>
