Discussion questions:
What new books are you reading?
Do you prefer fiction or non-fiction?
Question of the week:
What books are you eager to read that you haven’t read yet?
Enjoy!
Discussion questions:
What new books are you reading?
Do you prefer fiction or non-fiction?
Question of the week:
What books are you eager to read that you haven’t read yet?
Enjoy!
I’m not sure if she was a Marxist. Her chapter on historical materialism and Engels in The Second Sex is… problematic.
Oh boy.
Go on… I’m happy to be wrong. I only read that chapter but I wasn’t overly impressed.
No, I wasn’t doubting you; I said “Oh boy” because it’s such a pity and I can only imagine what the author took issue with Engels on, considering that he’s something of a punching bag even among Marxists.
Oh, I see. That’s one of those phrases that can mean a lot of things! When I get time, I’ll have another look and see what the beef was.
If you’re curious to know, she argues, unlike Engels in his Origin of the Family, that the rise of private property and the social relations of production are a useful yet insufficient explanation for women’s servitude.
According to her, the women’s material (physiological) incapacity in the production process constitute an inherent disadvantage only if viewed through a certain perspective (e.g. historical materialism). In other words, women’s alterity isn’t intrinsic to her biological sex, but rather the consequence of the imperialist human consciousness which seeks to objectively accomplish its sovereignty.
Basically, the classical doctrines of Marxism are based on a modernist tradition which seeks to uncover “objective truths” which conflict with de Beauvoir’s deconstructionist portrayal of women’s conditioning in the West.