Thoughts on production, alienation, and ideology
I read an article in The Guardian recently about this thing called Race2Dinner.
It’s not a new article, nor, indeed, is it a new program. But I think Race2Dinner captures something critical about the neuroses of certain professional class liberals and progressives.
Let’s talk a bit about that.
In the recent edited collection Social Reproduction Theory, Tithi Bhattacharya and others make timely contributions to Marxist feminism.
Their main message is that rather than commodities, labor plays a central role in both production and the social reproduction of society. Contrary to dual-system theory, Bhattacharya and others see social reproduction theory as offering a unitary account of production and reproduction. Unlike many early Marxists, however, they center labor and class conflict in explaining both.
I’ll take a closer look at Bhattacharya’s introduction to the volume, as well as her essay in the collection. I think her work, in particular, best captures the spirit of the approach.
Anyone following the replication crisis (and other debates) in the social sciences knows about one key problem with the implicit association test. In short, it’s not clear whether the test predicts anything. That is to say, ‘implicit bias,’ as measured by the IAT, might not predict prejudice or discriminatory behavior.
That’s a problem for the IAT for the obvious reason that its creators intend it as a major tool in the fight against racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression.
But I want to suggest that the IAT has even deeper problems. At least two of them. Even if the IAT does predict behavior, it still doesn’t explain a lot about why racism and sexism and happen. Nor does it tells us how to fight them.
So, here’s one of the biggest challenges on the left that I’ve been thinking about lately. We start with the core of a good idea. The idea even works well in specific situations. But then we turn that idea into some kind of Iron Law, trying to apply it way beyond its limits. The result? It doesn’t work so well any longer! I think we see this problem a lot with appeals to the notion of ‘lived experience.’
What’s going on here? What’s wrong with the appeal to lived experience?
I often make the point that the left should target a broad working-class coalition. Every now and then to the point of sounding like a broken record. This includes an approach from multiple vectors – not only people on the job, but also unemployed people and the precariat. But while I often talk about race and about tenants unions, I don’t talk as often about gender. I’ll do that here by looking at the feminization of work.
Readers who know me might be surprised that I haven’t written as much about gender. After all, I have a background in feminist philosophy and activism. So, in that spirit, I’ll use this post to share one key data point on the feminization of work. I think it addresses why it’s so important for leftists to address issues of gender, especially in the world of work.
© 2024 Base and Superstructure
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
