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
"can
> 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.
>
Agreed.
> We also take issue with his definitions of "cat" and "forces of
production":
>
> "'Cat' - a species of domesticated mammal that rarely functions as a
force
> of production, being on the whole content to be fed by its owner and go
its
> 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
as
> is human labor-power, and that much of what Juriaan calls "go[ing] its
own
> 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
this
> "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
not
> 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
"social":
> "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
of
> domestic modes of production -- those between cats, those between humans,
> those between cats and humans, etc. -- and how these are complexly
articulated
> with one another. Also, how these are complexly articulated with
non-domestic
> modes of production, e.g., the antelope, Asiatic, boar, capitalist,
elephant,
> 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,
Jurriaan.