Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:30:09 +1100 From: Rob Schaap <rws-AT-comserver.canberra.edu.au> Subject: Re: M-TH: Arbitrary Quota Now! G'day Carrol, You write: >It is by no means easy, or perhaps not even possible, to imaginatively >share another's "subjectivity," but it is possible to accept what another >declares about their condition. I have a particular example in mind, which >is perhaps generalizable ... if those who suffer from depression can't >"understand" it when not immediately experiencing it, how can anyone else >expect to ... it becomes necessary to honor the distinction between >knowledge >*that* and knowledge *of*, the former being achievable but not >the latter. One >definition, then, of incorrigible racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. would >be a refusal to accept the reality of experiences which one cannot >imagine. As it has been some time since I've expressed profound agreement with you, it's high time I did. I shall also try to go a little further. Writers like Taylor, Walzer and Warnke reckon (to quote the last), 'our capacity to reflect on our cultural values depends upon interaction with those that differ ... we must encourage those differences, and such encouragement would seem to mean that we must question any evaluative orientation or set of cultural values that tries to restrict in advance the evaluative orientations or cultural values to which we can have access'. This leaves us with an irresistable conclusion: The public sphere can (and must) logically accommodate a norm that facilitates/encourages different and as-yet-unknown ways of seeing. The self can, after all, exist and criticise itself, only with reference to, and dialogue with, other selves. Recognising the Other is fundamental to being a recognisable self. If selves are different, but also mutually dependent, then different selves can at least coordinate their response to their difference (the practical job of producing and reproducing solidarity). Any institution explicitly based on power in interaction, is based on the privilege of one way of seeing, and runs the risk of depriving itself of room for development; practical sensitivity to its necessarily diverse and dynamic environment; and, eventually, of its own recognisability. Marxism today? Cheers, Rob. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005