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!
Heh, I’m still going at de Beauvoir’s magnum opus, the second volume to be exact. However, I did read in the meantime al-Kawakibi’s works and I am in the midst of writing an essay analyzing the employed language in relation to the inflitration of Western modernity into the Ottoman Empire.
I hope I can finish de Beauvoir by the end of the month (very unlikely) so I can get my hands on Capitalism as Civilization: A History of International Law by Ntina Tzouvala.
Oh Ntina Tzouvala’s work is great. Let me know what you think when you get round to her book. It’s in paperback now, so more affordable than it was at first. Unless you mean a PDF, in which case there are probably copies online.
There are indeed digital copies online ;)
de Beauvoir? You mean the famous feminist (and possible Marxist)?
Indeed she is. Though that didn’t stop some communists criticizing her for her individualistic bourgeois philosophy.
Her work was also presaged or done better by communist authors who themselves were female as well but none of the communist books really struck it big.
Her’s did though.
Still, whatever one may think, she did support the May '68 protest movement, which many famous French philosophers never did…
The importance of her book is in the breakthrough it accomplished in deconstructing the millenia-old patriarchal/paternalistic logic which indiscriminately governed (Western) society. So it definitely merits its critical acclaim.
By the way, she supported the PRC since its establishment and visited China in the fifties. She wrote an investigative book about her visit entitled The Long March.
Yeah, but she was more of a “Maoist” type (before Gonzalo).
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.