Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997
Nivedita Majumdar
Subject: Real EnemyThe other day Dr. Strickland mentioned that at some point he had thought that Zavarzadeh "was barking up the wrong tree". The remark interested me because in my initial years as a marxist we were taught to identify (and correctly so) the liberal humanist world view as the real enemy of marxism. However, my understanding of the events and trends both in and outside the academy in the last few years unburdens liberal humanism from this ambiguous honour and bestows it to postmodenism (or post alism).
The ideological srruggle against liberal humanism was/is a relatively 'easier' one. LH recognizes the injustice and human suffering caused under capitalism but believes that all this can be (and need to be) reformed without bringing about any structural change. The marxist contention is ofcourse that social injustice is intrinsic to a capitalist mode of production and that no re-formation is possible without this recognition. The important thing, however, is "injustice" and "suffering" are granted unquestioned recognition in this ideological struggle - they are not doomed to the realm of endless play where every thing is as "justifiable" as everything else.
The "real enemy" is much more insidious 'cause it too claims to be anti capitalist. It justifies its claims in many ways - some instances:
- By escaping the "cunning of Reason" with which, it claims,the capitalist rationalizes the system.
Incidentally by questioning Reason they also rob the working class of its "reasons" to question exploitation.
-By celebrating a "Non Western" world view (whatever that may be). For the west it is said, is inseparable from capitalism.
It just so happens that ideas of 'socialism", "secularism", 'democracy" are also debunked as "western concepts" by post modern ideologues in both western and non western societies.
-By posing as pro enviornment and "anti development". For "progress" and "development" are seen as capitalist constructs.
It thereby displaces the capitalist and the worker and instead places man and nature as the real antagonists. (And yes, it is man not woman - woman is essentialized by ecofeminists as the exploited like "Mother Nature"!)
The list can go on and I might just sound as too cynical or 'too marxist' for my own good. I'll just say that I am well aware that a lot of largely progressive and well meaning members of the academy believe and espouse these theories. Their attractive/radical surface appearance often blinds us to their exhaustive implications. But for how long? we have to recognize the class character of these theories and "the rigid singularity if purpose : to occlude the understanding of the regime of wage labor and capital in its toatlity and thus enable transformative practices to change it" (Zavarzadeh,5).
Nivedita.
