Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:37:34 +1300
Subject: Re: Zizek on S11, sex, violence, 'politicaluniversality'...


Hi Lou

Thanks for your thoughtful response - sorry about the delay in replying -
bad time of year in this part of the world... I apologise that I won't be
giving you the detailed response your post deserves, but just note a couple
of points....

> I guess I'm wondering if we can strive for objectivity and then discuss the
> political ramifications that follow (?).  I know this is arbitrary: there is
> no objectivity and reality is always already political.

This is fine, but I'm still asking *why* strive for objectivity, and *who*
is this going to help - when it seems readily apparent that, to paraphrase,
"what you see depends on where you sit?"

Even so, I'm a reasonable fan of empiricism: undertaking experiments to
gather data and formulating conclusions based on that data. If Zizek or
anyone else wants to make "objective statements" based on wide-ranging
knowledge of the world, then I suppose that's fair enough as an assertion.
For example, I have little trouble with Zizek's "objective" speculations
about psychoanalysis and cinema.  He knows a lot more than me about that
stuff. 

But in this case, Zizek shows little familiarity with a whole lot of
ethnographic, economic, and philosophical scholarly work which relates to
multiculturalism. I just think he should stick to what he knows.

> Might it be the case that in discussions between unequals a recognition of the
> common ground or of commonalties could be of use?

Sure. I don't think you'd find too much argument there amongst most
"multiculturalists". But the last thirty years of theory has basically asked
people to not *assume* common ground exists without asking. Which seems
reasonable, no?

> So Zizek, for me, helps reveal the fact that it isn't simply a matter of
> getting your politics straight and then offering to help.  There needs to be
> an effort at description that might reveal the problems associated with a
> political agenda that precedes description.

Except that you can save a lot of time wrestling with phantom "problems" by
having a conversation by people who know their stuff and listening to what
they say. Zizek wrestling with the "problems" of female circumcision is
pretty ugly, kind of like watching Bush grapple with the "problems" of
Islamic fundamentalism.

And Zizek's public airing of his "problems" seems designed to make people
nod their head and say "yes, that's terrible" - it doesn't make people think
about the complexity of the issue, or lead them to further sources where
they can find out more information.

Regards,

Danny



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---