(draft 1.6) [working progress] capitalism, and the effects on the nuclear ‘family’
Perhaps the title is not totally appropriate, for what i am about to write is fairly personal but i somehow, although not clear cut, think that the power relationship, the reinforced patriarchy, capitalism ( as a systematic structure that foster current forms of tradition, practices, norms, ideas, power, ‘love’, ‘care’, work ethic, relationship, marriage, etc) of, do have some sort of… hmm… ‘relation’ .
anyway, before i could write up. i need to brain storm. i do not really need to speak to myself, but this is how i think. now the key points: the idea of property and power - the relationship between property and power. the social perception/ assumption on property and power. the family and it’s means to survive. it’s power relationship within the family structure. - the means of power or the power devices/ controlling means and property - the means of providence and power, and privilege to disempower other family members. the relationship between the family structure ( in a fairly vague sense, a generalization, "a tendency")and capitalism, or the current social and economic order. oppression in the state/ system; oppression in the family unit. ( the dripping effect; and the reverse dripping.) -but it is more likely that the formal would have much influence in social construction and culture. not to mention the system allows a minority of elites reforming society. and the ‘fact’ that it is apparent that these minority throughout history has influence society. but to reduce the state/ system to a single family unit and perhaps family politics and cultural disposition is problematic. cultural aspects, traditions, etc individual realization has to be taken into account. however, this essay only wants to focus on a particular type of family " stereotype". also focuses in a particular culture and region of the world. i would term it: " Typical (east and south east) Asian Family Syndrome"
——————————————————-
"typical asian family syndrome"
and it all begins with this social contruction, in the year xxx, i feel i have no say in ‘capitalism’ and the ‘family’ but i might be undermining myself. somehow, i do ’see’ a ‘link’ but is it a convenient excuse/coincident? i do not know. but…..
hmm, i’m interested in reading this once you’re done. i wonder if this comment will work. am i the only one who reads this thing?
Comment by lia — May 6, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
for historical analysis in the context of class struggle see Engels - ‘the state, family and private property’.
consider also; family as (working) unit, as the ‘rest’ of the woker, a small heirarchy for the/a worker - the man/husband - and the challenges of history of feminism and women employees. also, ‘full-employment’ and work-life ratios since feminism, since the (perhaps Fordist-era created) increase by 100% of the work-force - the freedom of the ‘unit’ sacrificed further. and the economic benefits for being a married couple with 2.1 children (differences between pre-fordism/pre-feminism and contemporary world.
clearly, i have little to add on the topic of the ‘asian family syndrome’.
how have you been Y? i’m so hopeless at this contactless communication. please, visit my blog, send me an email. i’ve been lazy, weak and smashed/recovering/withdrawing, i’ll email you… but please don’t rely on me.
love,
T
Comment by T — July 20, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
see Engels’ “origins of the state, family and private property” (or something), for good historical analysis of the form of the family unit and its relation to state/property/contract.
how are you these days? what have your latest adventures brought you?
it seems, as usual, i am failing in maintaining communication with distant friends. it would be lovely to hear from you soon. uni is an overwhelming energy drain.
T
Comment by dic — July 31, 2007 @ 6:55 pm