File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1995/baudrillard.07-95, message 31


Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the wager of seduction




On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Malgosia Askanas wrote:

> Ross, it seems to me a tad silly to take serious issue with the word
> "resistance".  To write/theorize in order to break down, disappear, seduce --
> what is at stake in insisting that this is not a form of resistance?
> And when you say: 
> 
> > Cultural studies thinks its doing something, and so long as it does,
> > it will remain imperialistic, capitalistic, and reductionistic.  
> > worse than it already has.  And the priveledged cannot help the oppressed, 
> > The West can neither understand nor help the East, but only fuck it up 
> > but only patronize them.  Utopic ideology is only production, so stop 
> > fighting it, and seduce it.
> 
> you're even putting forth some proposals for what it is that is targeted 
> for the resistance; so what gives?  Is anything to be gained by
> pretending that one is _not_ trying to resist anything?  (That may
> very well be true, actually; I don't know.) 
> 
> 
> - malgosia 
> 
No!!  There is nothing gained from dissimulation, but it tends to be kind 
of fun.  But to be quite accurate, I'm not sure that my post was actually 
dissimulative.  The point being that I could just as easily agree with 
Ryan, I could disagree, I could agree with a completely 
self-contradictory argument, or disagree with the subtle implication that 
I was actually in agreement, or I could simply make an direct set of 
statements in which you, the reader, can assume a position I have, which 
I may not have, or I could drink just enough alcohol to be just below the 
level of making sense.  Who knows?  But, gain is the last thing i was 
thinking of.  So what do you think?

Ross

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005