Monday April 29th 2013
Shulasmith Firestone, a very bright light in
our world, came to her last day on earth recently. Her book, The
Dialectic of Sex, The Case For Feminist Revolution, argues for the
elimination of male hegemony by doing away with the cultural distinction
between boys and girls, and in discussing how that might be reasonably
achieved she thoroughly pissed off the boys, pretty much all religious
groups, as well as a majority of the girls. She died alone, her body
wasn't found for a while. And there is a suggestion that she had
been suffering from a mental malaise that made her difficult to be
around. Toward the end of her book she decided that 'love' should
be a principle around which the human condition might be arranged.
Nor is she the first to think that way, so probably worth wondering what
she and others think 'love' might actually be, or mean, with respect to
an organizing principle for our species.
My understanding of the word
'love' and the various meanings associated with it has always been a hazy
one. Others look at the word and can see 'love' as something that
might exist in and of itself, like a cloud, or a Vegetable Garden, or God.
And there are associations between 'love' and those sort of interactions
between people that may or may not result in little people. And
sometimes too 'love' is thought of as a hopeless emotional condition that
only time will cure. But when I think about Shulasmith Firestone's
book, I think probably I should try to understand what she means in
her use of the word 'love,' by answering my confusion with a question
that goes something like this: "I wish for an ideal state between you and I,
and toward that difficult end I am prepared to compromise, are you?"