Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:21:39 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> Subject: Re: M-TH: Caricatures, Pomo and Marxist On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, LeoCasey wrote: > Justin's latest intervention on the Butler article employs the same technique > he finds so annoying when it is used with respect to Marxism -- caricature. A > broad brush is used to paint a diverse theoretical tendency (unlike Marxism, > we are not dealing with a coherent theoretical tradition; In my reading and personal experience I find that there is a perfectly terrifying conformity of thought among pomos, post-Marxists, whatever you want to call them. Logical positivism was a model of diversity in comparison. When I have time I will write a paper on this, documenting it with specific citations. indeed, most of th > targets of Justin's wrath would deny that they are 'post-modernists', whatever > that term may mean outside of the realm of asthetics; the application term > serves collect, in a residual category, a variety of non-Marxist and post- > Marxist radicals), I am not sticky about labels. If somone wants to say that I'm not on target because he or she isn't a postmodernist, very good. The question is the substance of the view, not what it's called. leaving a grossly caricatured portrait in its wake. If > Marxists and non/post-Marxists radicals can do nothing but exchange such > portraits, little will be gained on either side. This goes two ways, Leo. Pomos, or whoever they are, relentless caricature Marxists. This goes for you too. If there is an apolitical, > quietest streak among some cast into this residual category of post-modernist, > which I would not dispute, Indeed. certainly there is no less a streak in elements of > Marxism -- I speak here not only of most strains of academic Marxism, Sure. But the think is that in my experience while some academic Marxists are quietist, you find a lot of Marxists in the movements. I have not in my own experuence encountered people who derive their inspiration from Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, etc. but also > of sectarian Marxism (we see a number of specimens of this school of thought > in daily action) which engages only in the pseudo-politics of establishing the > authentic Marxism (Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism) for the coming day > when the masses will recognize them as their leaders. Well, these types are just boring. What really is the point > of pointing the finger at the other, when -- using the same technique -- it > could just as easily be turned around? Is the need to construct "enemies on > the left" here so overriding as to prevent any meaningful conversation. > In the case of Butler, who makes her "left"? > For the record, I do not consider myself a post-modernist; I am a radical > democrat in my politics and a post-Marxist in the theory which informs that > politics. There are many points at which I disagree with a Foucault, a > Derrida, and a Butler, but I find it intellectually useful and stimulating to > engage their work. Utility and stimulation is where you find it. Foucault is very smart and peiople I respect say the same for Derrida, although I've never been able to see it myself. Butler's a fool. Justin speaks of his experiences as an activist; all that I > can say is that in my own experiences, there are a great many non-Marxist > radical activists who similarly engage these theories. Admittedly, we do not > have the same experiences -- mine have been in the world of Toronto and New > York City, in the gay and feminist movements, in the anti-apartheid movement, > and now in education and teacher unionism, It's possible that my experience has been limited and peculiar. UI'm, just reporting what it is. I think the problem > is more that Justin is demanding of this category 'post-modernist' a level of > coherency akin to that of 'Marxist', when he is dealing with apples and > oranges, and so it is not surprising that he ends up with no 'post-modern' > activists. Well, I wouldn't expect coherence from pomos. But shouldn't the fact that the main writers often placed in this > category -- the Foucaults, the Derridas and, yes, even the Butlers -- were and > are political activists cause a little pause before we leap into the heady > world of sweeping generalizations. The French are different. Foucault was ana ctivist. Has Derrida ever been? > > little relevance to actual political struggles. Political correctness is an > attitude of how to do politics that extends far beyond campus-based "new > social movements" and right into campus based Marxism. That news of a single > panel at UC Santa Cruz, the last refuge of hippiedom in California, could lead > to such cries of outrage on this list, suggests to me that a sense of > perspective has been completely lost. Justin's anger does the same. > Yeah, but your pal Butler was on that panel. And it wasn't just wacko California. Look at the Sokal controversy, based out of New York. --jks --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005