[FRA:] Adorno/Fromm

[FREDWELFARE at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/28/2005 1:33:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
mpiscioneri at hotmail.com writes:


>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).
----------------------------------------------
Let's not forget that in most cases the education is merely the  specializing 
of a particular class, and not only in terms of content, but moreso  in terms 
of level.  After you have your "education" you can't exactly  increase it or 
go back and get more.  Now that you know how to operate your  figuative 
machine, get to work!
 

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.

Acording to most demographic analyses that I have been seeing lately, we  are 
NOT talking about a thin-slice.  I believe more women than men are in  the 
work-force and since their pay is not commensurate, the future still has  more 
in store.  In this sense, I am sure that Horkheimer's analytical  awareness of 
authority and dependence will still apply, for example, just look  at Bush's 
cabinet and entourage.

>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.
------------------------------------------
I personally do not believe that any part of our political apparatus is  
conscious.  The formation of the patriarchy is not simply historical, it is  also 
biological, and given the wiliness of the ruling classes, it is  biopolitical. 
 Foucault disagreed vehemently with Marcuse.  My  paraphrase of Foucault's 
position is that what is happening is not simply  repression as Marcuse and 
before him W. Reich claimed; the  process stimulates and then investigates as if 
reproduction occurs as an  elicitation by the system which then confines the 
'couple' within the matrix of  the bureaucratized lifeworld.  One of the 
reason's I study Habermas, is to  address the issue of assent or coordination within 
the couple or pairbond.   The communicative nature of male-female couples has 
much to be desired insofar  as it could possibly escape colonization, but see 
the Hite Report on the Family  or study the complexification of m-f 
relationships in the field of  evolutionary-psychology.  Belief or no belief in 
patriarchy or sisterhood  (an irrational disposition), establishing and maintaining 
sexual relationships  under our political and politicized "regime" has much to 
be desired and no doubt  because of the state apparatus.

>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  :-).
------------------------------------
Not sure this is a ruling class fiasco; the historical entrails of  
anti-miscegenation do not simply protest interracial relationships, the  genealogical 
analysis of "social" distance can take varied forms which I try to  describe 
with the term lineage, but again, this is sooo unconscious for most  people.  
Few people understand the kind of interperpsonal solidarity that  needs to be 
established in order to weather the social blasting that occurs in  work, 
familial and social contexts (note: I listed work first).

>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.
-----------------------------------
I would say unique.  Is there any similar analytical group like  the 
Frankfurt School?  Especially considering all of the secondary  literature produced in 
relation to them?

>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*?

Insofar as fashion is a fetish of herself, or himself, the clothing and  
accoutrements would signify a past experience that the wearer attempts to  flash 
up to produce an enhanced identity; perhaps a combination of  previously 
witnessed elements that are imitated with the intent to seem greater  or higher.  
Benjamin would call this pathetic - trying to have an  historical effect without 
any speech or action.  Perfume is a good example  of the effect: the smelly pe
rfume would mimetically refer to any number of past  experiences which 
although they were a fact are no longer and so unconsciously  sends the recipient 
back into their past, or sends the unconscious recipient  back.  Infinite 
repetition.
 
FredW