Wednesday, October 16, 2013

History without Nature?

History without nature? A response to Nancy Lindisfarne, Jonathan Neale and Colin Wilson

This article appeared in International Socialism Journal 140 (October 2013)

Unfortunately I lack the knowledge, particularly in anthropology, needed to offer a comprehensive response to either Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale [‘What gender does’, ISJ 139] or Colin Wilson [‘Sexuality in pre-class society’, ISJ 139] . However it does seem to me that each of their articles suffers from a serious and fundamental weakness and that, on inspection this turns out to be basically the same weakness: a tendency completely separate human history from its ‘natural bases’(Marx, see below).

Lindisfarne and Neale write, ‘The starting point is that the natural world is of a piece and continuous. As human beings we divide this world up into socially relevant continua.’ [p.135]. As a statement about humans and ‘the natural world’ this is sometimes true but as a generalisation it is false. Africa, for example, is a great continuous landmass which has been divided up by humans, especially imperialist humans, into ‘socially relevant’ nation states. But Africa and America are not naturally of a piece; they are divided from one another, not by humans, but by a vast ocean. Of course, for certain purposes, say the study of the earth’s geological history, Africa and America could be considered part of the same continuum but not for others, say the study of human history or travelling from one to another.

Fortunately we have dialectics, and specifically the dialectics of nature, to help us deal with these problems. There is continuity and there is change, and there are moments when quantitative change becomes qualitative change and there are contradictions, opposing forces and ‘leaps’ in nature not just more or less arbitrarily imposed by human ideology. ‘Gradualness and leaps …gradualness explains nothing without leaps’ writes Lenin in his notes on Hegel’s Logic. [1]

This matters here because Lindisfarne and Neale go on to say, ‘Continua lie behind the ways we characterise all aspects of our bodies, including reproduction, sexuality and desire’. (p.136). Now however true this may be for sexuality and desire it is not true for reproduction. Put simply women are able to bear children and men are not. And for most of human history the majority of women have needed to bear several children for the clan, tribe, people and species to survive. Moreover, when it comes to suckling babies, a biological necessity for most of history, there is also not a continuum. Women (again most women) can do it and men cannot.[2] And this, of course, is where ‘the family’ comes in.

Saying ‘the family’ here does not involve imagining, as L & N imply, that the form of the family remains constant over time or across different societies. Neither Engels, nor any other serious Marxist, has ever argued this. It is simply shorthand for referring to the different social arrangements established in order to deal with the bearing and rearing of children (although it often performs other functions as well).

At its core, Engels’ argument, with all its flaws, and the argument of all the Marxists who have followed Engels ( including German, Harman, McGregor etc.) is that at a certain stage of human development, characterised by the emergence of agriculture, the production of a surplus, the appearance of private property and the division of society into classes, these social arrangements for child bearing and child rearing became oppressive in a way that was not previously the case and have henceforth remained so.

To me this remains convincing, more convincing than L&N’s picture of sexism and ‘gender’ as purely or primarily an ideological mechanism for justifying class inequality, enforced by physically stronger men. It is true that sexism and gender have functioned as an ideological justification but one of the reasons why it has operated that way so widely and effectively is that it ‘connects’ with the material lived reality of the family in its various forms.

Here also is where L&N’s parallel between sexism and racism breaks down. At certain points in history, racism has intersected contingently with biology in the sense that the victims of European colonial expansion tended to have different skin pigmentation bur racism is perfectly possible without any connection to biology as the cases of British racism against the Irish and Zionist racism against Palestinians demonstrate. Moreover race is not a scientifically valid or useful biological category in the way that gender is. The notion of distinct races really is a social/historical construction. The concept of distinct races, genders, or sexes is not.

Which brings me to Colin Wilson’s deployment of Foucault’s argument that ‘sexuality is socially constructed’. I want to challenge this formulation because there is a much better way of putting the matter; namely that human sexuality it biologically based but then profoundly socially conditioned. The problem with Foucault’s and Wilson’s formulation is that it severs human behaviour from its natural or biological foundations in a way that is fundamentally anti-materialist. Marx was quite explicit on this point.

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.
The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.[3]
This error leads Wilson into a number of very poor arguments in an attempt to justify it.

He tell us that the ‘sexuality is a social construction’ position is the academic consensus [‘most recent research’ page 161]. I’m sorry but there is scarcely a proposition of revolutionary Marxism that hasn’t fallen foul of the academic consensus in the last forty years especially in its post-structuralist, post-modernist phase of which Foucault is probably the most important figure. He counterpoises ‘sex as fundamentally social’ to ‘sex as natural’ in a crude and false polarisation when sexuality is precisely nature/biology shaped by history/society. Again Marx is explicit:

The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. [4]

He argues that he is following in the tradition of Engels’ project in The Origins of the Family, where he demonstrates that ‘the state has not existed from all eternity’ and that the family also ‘far from being the direct expression of human biology has changed form in different societies’.  Clearly neither the state nor anything else is eternal but one thing is certain, human sexuality is far older than the state and must reach back to and develop out of pre-human, i.e. animal/natural sexuality. Of course neither Engels nor McGregor nor any other Marxist thinks either sex or the family is a ‘direct expression’ of human biology, any more than politics is a direct expression of economics. But that doesn’t mean that politics has no relation to economics or that the family or sex has no connection with biology.

All Wilson’s examples of the rich variety of human sexual practices and attitudes, important as they are for other purposes, are irrelevant to this argument. It is as if someone were to claim that the immense variety of food eaten by human beings in different parts of the world showed that eating was a social construction and not a natural necessity. Indeed the variety of human social practices are more constrained by biology that is our diet. Consider for example: attitudes to and the practice of oral and anal sex may and do vary enormously from society to society but for the most obvious and compelling reasons. All societies without exception have practiced on a large scale heterosexual vaginal intercourse and no society has attempted to prohibit this except for specific groups (priests, the unmarried, children etc). As we have said nothing is forever and it is conceivable that in some ‘brave new world’ this may change, but we are discussing the past and present, not the future, here.

Wilson’s confusion on this point also leads him to confusion on a couple of very basic points in Marx. He says that Marx maintains that ‘through labour….human beings interact with nature and so change themselves’. He quotes Marx in Capital directly;

Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature… He sets in motion the natural forces which belong to his own body, his arms, legs, head and hands, in order to appropriate the materials of nature in a form adapted to his own needs. Through this movement he acts upon external nature and changes it, and in this way he simultaneously changes his own nature. [p.164]

Here it is noticeable how Marx stresses the ongoing interaction or ‘metabolism’ between humans and nature. And Wilson continues in the same vein, noting how labour ‘transforms the human being as part of nature’. Then in the next sentence there is a slippage. He writes ‘the nature of human beings is that we do not have a fixed nature, but create ourselves’ (page 165).

Yes, but only up to a point. We do not construct ourselves from scratch but repeatedly modify ourselves on the basis of what we biologically and culturally inherit. Human nature is indeed not fixed but there are real continuities in it including as Lindisfarne and Neale point out, the need for ‘clean air, water, food and warmth because we are animals…nurture because we are mammals…love and friendship because we are social animals’.

There are good revolutionary reasons for insisting that human beings, including their sexuality, are not totally socially constructed or socially malleable. I am sure it is unintentional but on this question Wilson has made a concession to bourgeois ideology in one of its numerous fashionable academic forms.

My last point is this. I do not have the empirical evidence to pronounce on the benevolence or otherwise of sexual practices in pre-class societies. Maybe Wilson is right that the evidence doesn’t exist and maybe he is not. Lindisfarne and Neale are fairly confident on this point.

Scholars now know a great deal about the past. What information we now have suggests that for at least 100,000 years people managed their access to food, water, shelter, love, sex and nurture in more or less egalitarian ways. (p.145)

However if it is the case that in non-class, non-alienated primitive societies there was a general tendency to sexual cruelty, bullying, rape etc. this would raise serious difficulties for our whole argument about oppression. First we would need to have some explanation for this behaviour.[5] Second it would suggest that sexual oppression might continue to exist not only ‘after the revolution’ but in the future classless society, which would open the door to patriarchy theory and various forms of identity politics and separatism. If on the other hand Lindisfarne and Neale and McGregor are basically right on this then it is certainly a position socialists would have every reason to defend.

[1] Lenin (1963) p.123. V.I.Lenin, Collected Works,Vol.38, Moscow 1963.
[2] Continuing in the same vein L & N write, ‘In fact the entire gamut of social behaviours can also be seen this way. Take for example the continuum between life and death. Then consider the debates about living wills, brain death, assisted dying, euthanasia and organ donation.’ (p.136). As if in reply Mandel wrote, ‘According to scientific dialectics, the ‘absolute’ difference between life and death is negated by  by the existence of transitory situations. Everything is relative and hence also the difference between life and death, reply the sophists. No answers the dialectician: there is also something absolute and not just something negative in the difference between life and death’.. Mandel (1982) p. 167. Ernest Mandel, Introduction to Marxism, London, 1982.
[3] Marx and Engels, The German Ideology
[4] As above.
[5] Foucault and other Nietscheans might well be inclined to explain in terms of an innate ‘will to power’.

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

What would Real Democracy Look Like?

Written in response to the Fine Gael initiated referendum on the abolition of the Seanad.

What would real democracy look like?

In the debate over the Seanad we are faced with a choice between a totally undemocratic and elitist institution selected, you can’t really call it elected, by only 1% of the population and increasing the power of an unaccountable, unchecked Daíl full of privileged politicians who also don’t represent ordinary people. We reject this false choice and call, like the great Indignados movement in the Spanish plazas for ‘Real Democracy Now!’.

This raises the question of what kind of institutions would make real democracy possible. To answer it let’s begin by looking at what makes our current institutions – and not only ours but the American Congress, the British House of Commons, the German Bundestag and all these so-called democratic parliaments – in reality such farcical talking shops.

The first factor is that politicians are highly privileged. TDs are paid €87,258 with generous expenses and allowances on top and many of them get extras such as the Party Whip gets an additional €17,458 and the Taoiseach is paid €185,350(compared to €163,000 for the British PM and €171,000 for the French President). This level of privilege, which goes hand in hand with status and ‘connections’, makes politicians out of touch with those they claim to represent and attracts opportunists who are in it to line their own pockets.

The second factor is that politicians are basically unaccountable. They make promises at elections and then break them once they get in (Labour are specialists in this). They do this because they know there is no real way their constituents can hold them to account except after five years when they can go to the electorate again as part of a party machine with a fresh set of fake promises, designed to fool the electorate.

The third, and perhaps most important factor, is that the TDs, MPs, Senators or whoever they are, do not actually control the state or the economy and therefore do not really run  society at all. Decisive physical force is in the hands of the armed forces and the police which are not democratic at all but are officered by people closely tied to the elite, the rich and big business. Decisive economic power, which in the long run is even more important, is in the hands of the giant corporations and banks which are controlled by a tiny minority of the super rich like Denis O’Brien with his personal fortune of over €4 billion (that’s 100,000 times as much as the annual earnings of the average worker!). This state of affairs is basically the same in all western societies and between them these people run the parliaments much more than the parliaments run them. So no matter whom you vote for the system remains the same.

But each of these factors can be remedied and real democracy is possible.  TDs and all elected deputies should simply be paid the average worker’s wage so that they live the same life style and experience the same difficulties as the people who they represent. The right wing will claim that unless we pay high salaries we won’t attract ‘the best’ people. This reverse is the case: deputies willing to serve for an average wage will be far better representatives of the people than those in it for the money.
Then all elected representatives should be made accountable by being subject to regular recall by the electors. This doesn’t and can’t happen in the present system because the electors are not organised and have no connection with each other – instead they vote as atomised individuals at elections called from above by the government. What is needed is election by collectives who meet together regularly and to whom the TD or representative is accountable – i.e election by popular assemblies. Then if the politician broke their promises or went against the will of the people they could easily be removed by a simple vote.

The best base for these popular assemblies would be meetings in large workplaces where people already form collectives. Imagine all the workers in each factory, hospital, call centre, business headquarters, bus station, school, college etc met once among to elect, reelect or recall their delegate to a local or town council and that council in turn sent delegates, also recallable, to a national council. Once such a structure was in place it could easily be expanded to secure representation for all the other sectors among the people, like pensioners, the unemployed, carers, self employed, students, young  people and so on.

But if the national council elected in this way is really going to run society democratically it has to be in control of the key economic institutions and centres of wealth – the banks and major industries. These would have to be nationalised i.e. become the collective property of the state, but they would also have to be run democratically by their workers not by highly bureaucrats as at present. This could be done by electing management teams in much the same way and on the same principles as the election of political representatives. State officials – army officers, judges, police chiefs etc - could also be elected and made accountable to the democratic councils.

For those of us accustomed to the rule of politicians like Charlie Haughey, Bertie Aherne, Brian Cowan and Enda Kenny (or Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Tony Blair and Barack Obama), politicians who enrich themselves while serving the even richer, all this can sound outlandish and revolutionary.

It is not outlandish because it would be very simple and transparent to operate and because the beginnings of a system like this have started to develop not only in the occupations of the Spanish squares in 2011 but whenever working people have risen up against the system and tried to take control of society such as in the Paris Commune of 1871 or the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 (where the democratic councils were called ‘soviets’ – simply the Russian word for council) or in Spain in 1936 or Chile in 1970-73 or, indeed, in Ireland with the Limerick Soviet of 1919 .

But it is revolutionary. The only thing less likely than the Daíl voting for such system – Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas – would be the Denis O’Briens, the Michael O’Learys and the Richie Bouchers agreeing to it. Nothing short of real people power – mass mobilization on the streets and in the workplaces – would needed to make such genuine democracy a reality.