Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:45:31 -0500 From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> Subject: Re: M-FEM: Ludic Feminism and Red Feminism In the previous post on Ludic Feminism and Red Feminism, I forgot to include two other reasons why Ebert and her collaborators end up discursively inflating postmodernism. Allow me to add them here. b) They neglect to consider much good work that has been done by many labor or social historians and scholars in other fields that work with marxist frameworks. c) Their analyses of ideology are lacking in nuance and complexity. I understand that they are deliberately, polemically emphasizing the importance of reduction and abstraction, but what they gain by doing so is overshadowed by what they lose in this approach. On P. 26 of "Reading My Readers," Mas'ud Zavarzadeh has this to say: "More specifically, one of the readers says that my text is not acceptable because it 'speaks of the class-founded nature of subjectivity as if subjectivity can be reduced to, or exhausted by one's class.' Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: subjectivity can be 'reduced' to class in the sense that all aspects of subjectivity can be explained by 'class'--using a rigorous analysis that lays bare the various layers of mediations." However, this laying bare of the "various layers of mediations" is exactly what Zavarzadeh, Ebert, Morton, Cotter, etc. is losing sight of in their enthusiasm for polemical interventions. Instead, complexities and contradictions in the ideological conditions are reduced to one word--Post-al--in their texts. Yoshie
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005