Greetings Economists, On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:43 PM, michael a. lebowitz wrote:
Unless you are assuming that women (in contrast to men) are wired this way, presumably social determination is what is producing this division of labour--- in which case we approach a tautology.
Doyle; No not wired, or course not. I'm not defining one by the other either. I'm saying social bonding is a labor process that is not integrated into a socialist culture rather it reflects previous cultures view of how to build emotional structure. That the emotion structure and the work of producing social bonds is not equally distributed, and the foundation of social division. That one cannot in a realistic sense free women without addressing the scarcity and one sidedness of emotional support to which they are enslaved. That the process is mystified and poorly served as a part of society. That intimacy is considered out of bounds as a work process in socialist societies as well in the U.S. Hence outside of 'women's' work the principle of social bonding is not universally appreciated or social mandated. Meaning that very large scale emotional connection is anarchy. For example, that emotional issues like battle trauma are medicalized out of the public arena. I'm saying that computing techniques can produce emotional bonding processes and increase social bonding and attack the bottlenecks imposed by small scale social bonding. That group boundaries can be adapted to group boundaries is a Socialist process. Hence when tens of thousands of women are interacting with tens of thousands of men at once the emotional bonding process is socialized on a large scale. That the model of the family, and the extended family is defunct and a social emotional regime encompasses whole groups up to and including whatever is inside the Socialist camp. At this stage if you want to say again this is a tautology, it becomes in my view a technical argument about how to interpret communications structure and what is content. Which I can follow up on in depth and with references. Not that I want to scare you off. I'm perfectly willing to follow up if I can feel like you take the point seriously. And if you are tired then as I think appropriate email lists don't support depth in content. But if a mass movement arises then the argument will be by those states who want to develop communications via networks. Doyle
