From: "flere-imasho" <D.R.Miller-AT-newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:49:03 GMT0BST
Subject: Re: apocalyptic object


> On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, B Madonna Durkheim wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 	If you want to think Baudrillard a sexist, then you completely 
> > misunderstand his discourse.  JB demonstrates the manner in which the 
> > feminine inherently resists the phallocracy because it does not use a 
> > political strategy.  I find it ridiculous to suggest that Baud. is sexist 
> > simply because he suggests a different strategy (isn't it obvious that 
> > the old one continues to fail?).
> > 
> > 
> > Sloane
> > 
> 
> 	It is possible, even probable, that I misunderstand B.'s 
> discourse; thanks for pointing that out.  However, I don't know that it's 
> possible to understand or misunderstand _totally_, nor do I "want" to 
> think that B. is sexist.  I do believe -- and it seems that Mark Nunes 
> might be with me on this one -- that the philosophical current, if you 
> will, that B. is a part of (and he is a part of it!) _is_ sexist.  What 
> strategy exactly is it that he is suggesting, in your opinion?  You  
> suggest that it is similar to the strategy of women: making a third 
> space, outside of the political arena, is the only way to go (cf  
> Foucault's repressive hypothesis).  Why do you feel that B.'s discourse  
> does that?  Why do you feel that _he_ does, if that's an appropriate  
> question?  B. invites this criticism by specifically using gendered 
> language (not that he could avoid using gendered language, esp. in 
> french) to explicate this dichotomy between object and subject.  I'd _like_ 
> to believe that the discussion of the object/subject dichotomy and the 
> seduction involved _isn't_ sexist: but I don't believe that at this 
> point.  If you have any more convincing and/or comprehensible arguments, 
> I'd like to hear them.
> 
> thanks, joshua
>

    Here are a couple: the mass passivity in the face of the 
fascinating and dead self-referential discourse of academic and media 
debate masks a situational rebellion which cannot be represented (as 
it is out of the discourse).  B.'s view cannot be centered due to the 
collapse of a subject/object dichotomy and the death of the relation 
between available representation and reality.  The is characteristic 
of B.  The 'philosophical current' has been criticised for apparent 
lack of advocacy, blocking a nascent recentring in favour of women by 
decentring.  However B. does take 'passive subject' space to 
extremes, notoriously observing that a woman who was murdered and 
eaten was exerting a fatal fascination on her cannibal 'victim' (this 
may seem repetitive, but Phil Dick's 'Beyond Lies The Wub' deals with 
the same topic and may be clearer..).  Any power-based subject/object 
dichotomy at once corrupts and degrades: it is suggested that we need 
to radically challenge this.  If we cannot have a 'view from nowhere' 
we may be able to say we have a 'view of nowhere'...?
     You could, of course, claim that representation exists in 
reality and is inherently sexist, but then you could say the same 
about grunting...
     Ha det bra,
                dave.    

    

'It would have passed in any case.'
'Yes, but not as rapidly.'

Dave Miller
Research graduate
Dept. of Politics
University of Newcastle
NE1 7RU

D.R.Miller-AT-NCL.AC.UK