[OPE-L:5855] Re: Re: Hello and Kliman's cat

jurriaan bendien (Jbendien@globalxs.nl)
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:54:40 +0100

[ show plain text ]

Hello to the cat fraternity/sorority !

Oops I hope I haven't trodden on any catloving toes. That would be
politically incorrect now wouldn't it. I must have been a bit fatigued
when Andrew's message about catfeeding in relation to modes of production
blipped on the screen.

> In his otherwise very thorough glossary, Juriaan curiously did not define
> opener."

A Freudian slip maybe ?

Remind us not to get stranded on a desert island with him. A can
> opener is a highly developed force of production used to open cans.

> We also take issue with his definitions of "cat" and "forces of
> "'Cat' - a species of domesticated mammal that rarely functions as a
> of production, being on the whole content to be fed by its owner and go
> own way."
> "'Forces of production' - i.e. means of labour (means of production) i.e.
> equipment, implements, tools, technology, as well as human labour power."
> It seems to us that cat labor-power is just as much a force of production
> is human labor-power, and that much of what Juriaan calls "go[ing] its
> way" is indeed production.

Indeed Cats may be forces of production.

For instance, we produce entertainment services
> for ourselves individually, and for each other. You may wish to call
> "play," but what do you call it when Michael Jordan does it? (BTW, in
> relation to our sizes, we can jump far, far higher than he can.) Is it
> true that when we engage in these material practices, we are "engaging in

> domestic labour, in a domestic mode of production"?
If you like.

> Juriaan also argues that relations between cats and humans are not
> "The relation between you and the cat isn't a social relation, because
the cat
> is an animal." Let us point out that humans are also animals. Would
> relations between one human and another then be non-social?
Well following syllogistic reasoning you might be right, but for me the
property "being animal" is not fully definitive of human beings. I am
still keen on the idea that human beings have evolved beyond the animal
state, but I could be wrong about that. A loving relationship with a cat
is not a social relation by my definition, although a bit of bestiality may
be very satisfying indeed to some, and although it may be expressive of a
social relation.

> We think the important problematic to tackle is to theorize the variety
> domestic modes of production -- those between cats, those between humans,

> those between cats and humans, etc. -- and how these are complexly
> with one another. Also, how these are complexly articulated with
> modes of production, e.g., the antelope, Asiatic, boar, capitalist,
> feudal, puma, etc. modes of production.
I confess I've thinking about the issue myself, having a girlfriend who is
a biologist and who works in the zoo. However I find the concept of
articulated modes of production useful only in the field of anthropology,
and I don't want to end up like Heidegger.

In OPE-L Solidarity,