[FRA:] Adorno/Fromm

[matthew piscioneri]

>Probably the cracks run more along
>class lines.

Just to clarify (and probably unnecessarily) I was *broadening* orthodox or 
conventional notions of class to include post-war *new* class categories, 
including what I take to be my own *class* membership (the educated poor - 
albeit of my choice).
----------------------------------------------
Yes, a lot of water under the bridge since 1968 in certain socio-economic 
and cultural spheres and places, which isn't to say that what Horkheimer 
describes doesn't still appy in DACS (democratic, advanced capitalist 
societies) or in more traditional lifeworlds, which also have thin social 
slices of progressive gender-reformed groups). Very difficult - and unwise - 
to generalize. It is what makes it all so interesting AND difficult to be 
analytically precise in a history of the present.

>Horkheimer in Critical Theory, 1968, see chapter on Authority and the
>Family, explains the position of the mother-wife in the family in terms of
>dependence upon her husband, he states, "Because the woman bows to the laws 
>of  the
>patriarchal family, she becomes an instrument for maintaining authority in  
>this
>society."  I am ripping this quote out of its context which is very  rich 
>in
>description and explanation of the cultural and  historical context.  That 
>men
>do not revolt but instead adapt and that  women are primarily dependent on
>men are two pertinent aspects.  But, this  was 1968.  Susan Faludi wrote
>Backlash which contains a distinctively  different view about current 
>events.
-------------------------------------
>Between these two views, the actual  "mechanisms" that lead to marriage and 
>family
>still seem either camouflaged or  hidden.

I'd prefer to understand these actual mechanisms keeping in mind Marcuse's 
brilliant notion of the *procreative regime*. In a sense, this regime 
totalizes over both men and women. Of course, the patriachy can only survive 
with the *assent* of BOTH men and women. I think this point gets overlooked 
in favour of trying to normatively dichotomize the gender binary in the 
doubtful interests of some delusionary integrated sisterhood based solely on 
*biological* gender. In other words, it is silly to think ALL men support 
the patriachy, and ALL women wish for its destruction. As far as I can tell, 
the patriachy is a historically contingent manifestation of the more 
primordial power-laden interests of the procreative regime.
------------------------------------------
>One correction to your post above,
>why I copied it, is that class  should always be read as lineage as well.

Yes, I recall your interest in this issue from discussions held on the 
disbanded Political_Theory at Yahoo group. The guaranteeing of 
property/political power interests via the strict management of lineage is a 
major part of the equation. The *ruling* class remains very interested in 
reproducing (literally) itself :-).
------------------------------------
>I wonder if there isn't at least a
>periodically delimited field  that no longer exists but that did address 
>this problem.

The tone of Horkheimer's and Adorno's discussion suggest this. I won't say 
this mode of analysis is anachronistic; simply it is one useful diagnostic 
tool amongst several now.
-----------------------------------
>BTW, Benjamin  mentions fetish in the context of souvenir as the remainder 
>of a
>dead  experience!

Fascinating and applicable. So if applied to a "fetish of herself," what is 
the *dead experience*?

regards,

mattP
>FredW
>_______________________________________________
>theory-frankfurt-school mailing list
>theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
>http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school