Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 22:53:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Jon Beasley-Murray <jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu> Subject: Re: That Infamous Turn To The Right (Our "Problem" with Liberalism) I thought Leo's comments were very interesting. Where I would criticize him would be in his apparent straightforward identification of multiculturalism etc. with liberalism--that seems to be giving up the argument (which I agree needs to be considered more carefully) too easily: liberalism is very good at appropriating other politics in its guise of "tolerance," and we shouldn't fall into slipshod acceptance of such appropriation. Most obviously, although there are and have been self-consciously liberal feminisms, there are plenty other varieties. But the same goes for other movements which may pass occasionally under the (liberal?) rubric of multiculturalism: black nationalism, most of lesbian and gay politics etc. Which is not to say, as Leo points out, that mere anti-liberalism makes for a political position that is immune to critique. But it is equally a (paranoid, liberal) mistake to present the "other" of liberalism (whether fascism, communism or whatever) as a homogenous threat to social rights or social freedoms. Moreover, I would argue that even when social movements understand themselves along liberal lines, their power and effectiveness almost inevitably arises as a consequence of their practicing quite different pragmatic politics, and when they come to rely on (or believe?) their own liberal rhetoric, that can be when they lose practical legitmacy, even when they appear to have gained it, as judged by liberal standards. But what is liberalism, anyway? Stanley Fish (no marxist he, though cast as one by an 80s establishment that precisely considered any challenge to liberal tenets to be equal to some "anti-democratic communist threat") is teaching a class on "Liberalism and Legal Theory" this coming semester, and here is a bit of his course proposal: "In what is almost an aside, John Locke in his _Letter Concerning Toleration_ declares that to deny God, even in thought, is to dissolve all bonds. What makes this statement so interesting is the fact that Locke is always cited as one of the chief forebears and begetters of a system of political thought--call it liberalism--that sets itself the task of constructing a just and secure society in the absence of any reference to God that is more than just ceremonial. The project of liberalism can be thought of as an extension of the Reformation, and as beset by the same problems: the nature of authority, the relationship of individual freedom to truth and virtue, the tension between the doctrine of inner light and the Biblical injunction: 'Be ye perfect.'" Incidentally, I have to choose my classes for next semester shortly, and this class clashes with Fred Jameson's "Brecht." Any advice as to which (if any) to take? Take care Jon Jon Beasley-Murray Literature Program Duke University jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005