The paper functions as a contribution to feminist analyses that are methodologically based on Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of political economy and her understanding of capital accumulation, but also as a contribution to contemporary social-reproduction theory which aims to integrate Luxemburg’s legacy alongside that of Marx. The essay offers a sketch for a ‘Luxemburgian feminism’ consisting of an overview of Luxemburg’s critique of bourgeois feminism and a preliminary application of Luxemburg’s ‘dialectics of spatiality’ to contemporary social-reproduction theory. With Luxemburg’sThe Accumulation of (...) Capitalin mind and her several essays on the so-called ‘women’s question’, we shall attempt to relate Luxemburg’s explanation of the dynamic link between capitalist and non-capitalist spatialities with the commodification of women’s reproductive labour. (shrink)

Uvodno, vremenski i sadržajno pokušavamo odrediti pojam Moderne u odnosu na suvremene pokušaje postuliranja postmodernizma. Kako je središnja pozicija rada problem »univerzalizma«, ovdje naglašavamo kako kritika te modernističke osnove nije isključivo jedna postmoderna metoda, drži se da je ta kritika naprosto logički unutarmoderni razlog. Objedinjujuća komponenta svih elemenata koja se kreće oko »napada« na novovjekovnu Descartesovu paradigmu svijeta i života nije nastala tek u vidu eventualnog postmodernizma, prije se može reći da se ona, kao i neke druge komponente poput sinkretizma, (...) eklekticizma ili brisanja granica između elitne i pop kulture, pojavila već znatno ranije . Središnji dio rada problematizira ideju navodnoga modernog reda; pred-novovjekovno mišljenje građanskoga u-ređenja temelji se na stavu da je prirodno stanje kaotično i/li nesigurno pa se ono mora napustiti i prevladati. To se u slučaju društvenoga ugovora čini metodičkim predloškom koji počiva na principima uma. Pokazat će se da konzekvencije takvoga umskog uređenja nisu univerzalni čovjek, njegovo prosvjetljenje i kulturno oblikovanje prirode, već zapadanje u barbarstvo , nadzirano reproduciranje bilo zatečenoga sustava ili disciplinarno održavanje bio-moći koji su temeljna počela moderne suvremenosti. Kritikom liberalističkoga pluralizma i bio-političke proizvodnje pokušat ćemo ponuditi argumente koji bi učvrstili pretpostavljene teze.In introduction we are trying to define the term Modernity both in time and subject notion in relation with contemporary attempts of postulating postmodernism. Since the problem of »universalism« is the central position of the work, we are stressing here that critique of that modern fundament is not exclusively one postmodern method, we are assuming that that critique is simply logical inner-modern reason. The combining component of all elements which is revolving around »attack« at modern Descartes’ world and life paradigm didn’t arise as a part of eventual postmodernism, we can rather say that it has appeared even earlier as some other components like syncretism, eclecticism or removing the border between elite and pop culture have .The central part of the text deals with an idea of so called modern order; the pre-modern thought of civil in-order is based on attitude that natural state is chaotic and/or insecure so it should be abandoned and overcame. In the case of social contract that can be done by methodical recipe which is based on mind principles. It will be shown that consequences of that mind order are not universal human being, his enlightenment and cultural nature modelling, but falling in barbarity , controlled reproduction of present system or discipline bio-power maintenance which are all together basic elements of modern contemporaneous. We are trying to propose arguments for strengthening presumed theses by critique of liberal pluralism and bio-political production. (shrink)

In this paper, implicitly starting from the neuralgic epistemological point caused by Kostas Axelos’ question to Gordana Bosanac: “Will a woman manage to think?”, we will analyse The Second Sex (Le Deuxième sexe, 1949) by Simone de Beauvoir, to deliberately dissolve the irony of Axelos’s question by reading and talking to the text of one of the most important woman philosophers in the history of philosophy. We will interpret The Second Sex as a report on the phenomenology of the relationship (...) between the gendered self and the gender-marked world, in which the social ideals of the feminine shape the experience of the female self and the processes of becoming a woman. The paper is structured into three sections. After the introductory notes, in the first section, entitled “Ad feminam criticism and controversies”, we will present only a few paradigmatic examples of controversies and negative reactions that followed the publication of The Second Sex. In the “Phenomenology of Gender”, the second and key section of the paper, we will pay attention to the original reading of The Second Sex, mapping the existentialist-phenomenological theses on gender in the book. Finally, in the concluding remarks, we will only sketch a few more recent readings of The Second Sex, to point out the current and very engaged affirmations and additions to the ideas that Simone de Beauvoir announced with that philosophical classic. (shrink)