“One cannot create a balanced friend for a shared life without integrating the free mother-womanhood of natural society with the free conscient womanhood of class society. One cannot manage this association without also re-forming the correlative similar manhood.”
Women and men constitute the principal force of social nature over this earth which is a little spot in the universe. This led us to handle the beings, existences of woman and man separately and together. Of course, the obligation that there are at least two persons for developing socialness necessitates us to also discuss co-life [sym-biosis], the relationality of our existences. It is of vital value that we strain our given mentality structurations on the natures of woman and man, on the interaction of these two natures, on their relations and contradictions, and conduct discussions that don’t fall into dogmas or into the individualism advised by liberalism. Starting from this need, we wanted to meet our readers with a series of texts that focus on women, men and co-lifes.
To get out of the definitions of woman and man that are imposed by statist, religionist, nationalist and scientist ideational templates, one must first of all recognize, define and understand the nature of woman and the nature of man. With this idea, we open to discussion the topic of free co-life in our 8th issue, after our two last issues where we discussed the beings, natures and the constructions of woman and man.
One should make the first science in the field of co-lifes, and one should also make the first revolution in this field. Since we think that social sciences should handle the field of co-lifes by assigning it an importance that matches its reality, the strife for equality and freedom that’s centred on woman for Jineolojî will have to deal with the crippling of co-lifes, the expression of the cracking of social truth, and to define it as our basic revolutionary problem.
The topic of free co-life, no doubt, needs to be handled with a scope that can’t be narrowed down to the singular relations of the sexes woman and man. The discussion of free co-life on the philosophical plane envelops the development of a deep being-energy-sense that empowers one to meet the truth of the universe and of course a paradigm of freedom. Beyond human-human relations (woman-man, woman-woman, woman-child… etc.) it calls forth the re-handling of the human-nature relation. The development of ways and methods for vitalizing a democratic-ecologic life paradigm with a defense of woman’s freedom, primarily depends on the definition of co-life’s measures and principles on the basis of freedom. On the basis of the principle of reciprocal dependency and complementarity, the construction of life again equally on the basis of the unity of the differences, will lead both sexes to meet at the principles of free co-life.
Let us indicate some of the titles that we hope to discuss within the topic of our 8th issue:
Why is co-life a need & what are its bases? Is it a universal obligation to be a couple? How can we deal with the ideological, philosophical, political sides of co-lifes? What is the role that the state assigns to woman and man in demography? Through which ideological-political means does capitalist modernity consume sexuality? How is the culture and history of family-marriage constructed; how is family constructed as the prototype of the state? Is it possible to democratize family? What does free co-life express? How to handle the politics of free co-life and the system of co-chairs in a democratic nation? How can one deal with the sociality of love and affection in free co-life? How does the theory of free co-life relate to the theory of infinite divorce in this context? How does the theory of free co-life approach nature?
We invite our readers who want to contribute to this topic whose outlines we tried to indicate above, to share with us until 20 November 2017 their texts that are 5 to 14 pages long.
English: Işık Barış Fidaner