Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 14:49:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Zizek on S11, sex, violence, 'politicaluniversality'...


A quick, few comments on Danny's questions and insights below.  My sense is that one
strives for critical thinking - objectivity - in order to put pressure on the
equally pressing recognition that the rational is always political.  One way of
doing critical work is to form ideas about the dynamics of a situation while
recognizing that the ideas are always political.  Then one must apply these ideas.
The politics of application seem somewhat different than the coherence or logic of
the reasoning itself.  For example, if multiculturalism is a marker for equal and
sovereign rights for all cultures, what gives an outsider the right to cross over?
How do the theoretical underpinnings of mc help us transgress borders?  Those are
the questions Zizek seems to be asking, the more overarching theoretical questions.

Sure, Danny's right to note that Zizek isn't really wrestling with the specifics and
details of a knotty question like female circumcision.  I'm sure Zizek would agree.
He uses it, however, only as a single example of the local right of particularistic
cultures to claim legitimacy for the acts that take place under their jurisdiction.
And of course, no one would disagree with Danny's reminder that the more one knows
about female circumcision the better.  And yet does the recognition of the
complexity of this problem help foster cross-cultural dialogue?  Perhaps. But I'm
not sure.

It seems to be that before we can enter the culture at a grassroots level to make
use of this complex knowledge, we need to have a coherent theoretical grounding that
authorizes our entrance.  Certainly, a precise accounting of a culture's
adjudicating practices will be indispensable in offering help, but how do we obtain
that information if we're from an outside culture, forever an exotic other to the
very real differences that we face (Lyotard - JanMohamed)?

I know that this is an age-old question, but I don't feel many mc'ers really grapple
with it.  Probably this is so because, like Danny, most mc'ers want to get to the
very real work on the front lines.  I don't blame them for their impatience.  But,
still, I can't help but read the female circumcision example as a version of the
theory/practice gap that we see showing up in various guises throughout history.
Zizek wants us all to be good mc'ers by not forgetting this crucial paradoxical
matter.

Sorry if this seems naive, but isn't Zizek pointing to the exact problem that human
rights advocates constantly face?  Don't most academics think that human rights
discourse is simply a universalist cover for a particular political agenda?  And I'm
not sure I disagree.  But even if I do agree, that recognition doesn't provide a
basis for me to have much authority in suggesting changes for someone else's
culture.  Should we resolve the matter by claiming that human rights are only a
"private" concern and should never profitably be used in "public" policy (Rorty)?  I
hope not.  But I'm still struggling over the alternatives.

Danny Butt wrote:

> 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 ---



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