From: colin.wright3-AT-virgin.net
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 21:22:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Defending culture


Lois Shawver wrote:
> 
> Colin,
> 
> <Capitalism disavows the very possibility of alterity,
>  since, as with all Imperialisms, otherness is an affront to its very
>  self-understanding.>
> 
> Could you flesh that idea out a bit more, Colin.  On the surface,
> capitalism talks about competition, which involves a kind of alterity.
> 
> ..Lois Shawver

Lois,
     This competition, though, always occurs within the enormous horizon
of Capitalism, on the terms set by it. In this case, alterity would be
too generous or strong a word: commodification posits rather
an-equivalence-waiting-to-happen, which is quite different. By alterity
I was trying to suggest an outside of Capitalism. To be honest, I'm not
sure there is such a thing anymore, or even if this mode of thinking
remains adequate. I do not mean this to sound funereal, as if I'm
mourning the passing of this alterity. It is not this simple, since I
feel ambiguously about Capitalism - it has some fantastic benefits, and
some unfortunate side-effects. But I do think that the notion of
equivalence upon which exchange-value is predicated necessarilly
supresses difference, and the 'sensuous particularity' Adorno called
for. It seems to do this by seeing it, much as Imperialist powers saw
foregin territories, as potential capital, thereby already delimiting
the other to the order of the same. 
    Brent's recent comments about how problematic it would be to
differentiate postmodernism from Capitalism are very important I think.
I think my initial comment 'Capitalism disavows the very possibility of
alterity' was perhaps couched in too brusque a tone, a brusqueness that
suggested the possibility of making this opposition. Capitalism is far
more subtle in its dealings now than mere brute opposition. Hegemony
would be a key word here too.
     I find myself in a difficult position. I am certainly not an
orthodox Marxist - this corpus has been largely discredited, not least
by the former Soviet Union. But I do have a certain sympathy with a
Western Marxism that, in fact, could provide the analytical tools with
which to iron out the negative fallout of Capitalism - what Habermas, in
a way that backs up what I have been saying, calls the 'colonization of
the lifeworld'. I feel that Lyotard has a good deal to offer on
precisely this problem.
Col