Greetings Economists, I don't know if Sandwichman is being funny or not. But his note parallels the thesis of my previous note. So I'll apply it here. The traditional family is a small workshop for producing emotional connection. It's limitation in Christian culture for example are about Women's social power, homosexual emotional connection, racist and sexist prattle about people who we don't know directly and so on.
Psychological transference is one of those profoundly un-rooted terms to describe the problem. Is emotion possible on a large scale or permanently limited to small groups is a much more clear statement of the problem? Well the obvious answer to me is how much can we automate emotion knowledge? The hypertrophy word below seems to represent how capitalism is pretty much indifferent to the emotional effects of job insecurity. Or actually craves that insecurity in order to control workers. At the same time Sandwichman doesn't seem to offer clarity about the problem but jargon. thanks, Doyle On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Sandwichman wrote:
Holy cow! I wonder to what extent the GOP fetish about "preserving the traditional family" might be explained as a psychological transference of anxiety about the hypertrophy of finance and deline of manufacturing in the US political economy.
