RE: gender: Judith Butler's pseudo materialism and culturalfeminism.(fwd

I don't understand what the issue is at stake here. human nature is by
definition social...we satisfy our needs and neccessities with others, not
individually or seperately from them. even though this may not appear
in a direct form, it is always "implicitly" social.  human
beings have always lived in "different" socieities, and they will.
sociability is already part of human nature.  however, it is importartant
to decide what type of society is best suitable for us to live: this is,
obviously, not capitalism, since capitalism
is not self-sustaining and healthy for human beings either.

to seperate human nature from social or social from human nature is
exactly what the mainstream discourses on human nature are trying to do. 

second issue is an issue of empirical and historical verification. I DO
NOT believe that  human nature is individualistic, sexist, hierarchical in
genes.Many anthropological studies show that these concepts are totally
social inventions relative to circumstances (climate, environment, type of
social organization, grup structure etc...), and they can not be
generalized as as universal and fixed charecteristics of human species.
these are the concepts that we learn from society through  a "certain"
type of socialization. (thanks to capitalist media that injects all sorts
of violences). We need this kind of "research" in oder to falsify the
ideological and unscientific (false) assumptions of socio-biology. We can
can not simply sacrife this for the fear of trapping in a discourse. OF
COURSE, WE CAN WRITE BETTER DISCOURSES. WHO SAYS THAT WE CAN NOT?
Human beings, can, in principle, create a society that looks different
from what we have now. We are not trapped in capitalism, and we should not
be. it is purely ideological to assume that capitalism is in human nature.


Mine

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:48:14 -0800
From: "Boles (office)" <facbolese@usao.edu>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: RE: gender: Judith Butler's pseudo materialism and cultural 
feminism.(fwd)

But can an "ACCURATE NOTION OF HUMAN NATURE" be constructed?  I think this
is the question put forth, not whether gender inequality is part of it or
not.  Or are we to define 'human nature' negatively by what it is not, i.e.
gender inequality is not part of it?  Doug seems to ask, "isn't all of
'human nature' a social construction, including gender?"  Will there ever be
an answer?  Some anthropologists and sociologists seem to argue that there
are some basic urges (e.g. hunger) and capacities (e.g. for language), but
that's about it.   Is this an accurate notion of human nature?  Or are these
concepts of what may constitute human nature a social construct?
elson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu]On
> Behalf Of md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 3:28 PM
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
> Subject: Re: gender: Judith Butler's pseudo materialism and cultural
> feminism.(fwd)
>
>
>
> Read the rest of my post. i said that "gender inequality is not built into
> human nature". gender is a social product just as private property is a
> social invention. This is what i meant by accurate notion of human nature.
> If you think human nature is sexist and capitalist by definition,
> beleive it so. Since i don't believe..
>
> human nature is not essence either or is something to have access to. it
> develops with society as social. Also remember Marx' concept of human
> nature as species being and his concept of social nature..I don't wanna
> reiterate Economic and Philosophical manuscripts and German Ideology...
>
> I have got to go back...
>
>
> Mine
>
>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:31:56 -0500
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: gender: Judith Butler's pseudo materialism and
> cultural feminism. (fwd)
>
> md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
>
> >The bottom line is that we MUST HAVE AN ACCURATE NOTION OF HUMAN
> NATURE TO
> >BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF GENDER RELATIONS.
>
> How do you know when you've found an "accurate notion of human
> nature"? You have some access to "human nature" beyond
> social/discursive constructions of it?
>
> Doug
>