reason - take two

rc&am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Fri Dec 11 06:46:14 PST 1998


Alex LoCascio wrote:


> What pisses me off is the way right-wingers try to monopolize words like
> "reason." So the Right is scientific, rational, and reasonable, whereas
> all of us lefties are crazy, relativistic, pomos.

well, maybe the fact that the right are so adept at occupying this ground should make you think twice. i can't remember who said it, but me thinks that that reason and objectivity is generally a rhetorical strategy for dumping one's opponents into the abyss of irrationality, as you note. two options then: either one attempts to redefine what rationality is, or one assigns it (and its bedfellows, like irrationality, crazy...) to where it should go: the kit bag of the oppressor.

as for pomos, i've met some nice ones, many of whom were not relativists at all, but strict monists in the manner of spinoza. in any case, i still think that pomo is a publishers' fancy, and that it isn't at all accurate or meaningful a term beyond that. though it seems to inspire all sorts of responses which might make an interesting story one day.

also, i think it was rakesh (?) who pointed out that to define reason as western is to relegate the 'otherly-complexioned' as beyond reason, thus by definition, as crazy. i think there was a good case made, but i am not finally convinced. my problem is this: whilst there is in modern racism a notion of implacable difference, that it is simply not possible to have two 'different groups' in the same space becasue of such presumably implacable difference (hence, the recent halting of immigration on the grounds that it is the very presence of immigrants whihc produces racism), i don't think these arguments are so easily applied to a critique of reason as western reason. why? simply becasue reason already carries its own burdens of the racialisation of the world: the attribution of emotion, insanity, hysteria, etc (as antithetical terms) is already a racist (and sexist, perhaps at the same time sexist, since both are deemed to be rooted in nature).

the antithetical terms of reason are always present in the workings of reason, even if one pleads they are not. for instance, if one were to begin the work of redefining reason, to clear it of its historical and logical burdens, one is still left with a resurgence of limits that are still racist - those burdens reappear. a clear example for me is multiculturalism: multiculturalism, or its most recent version here, unity in diversity, was always premised on the pledge of allegiance to a set of 'rules' whihc were deemed to be the core principles of western democracy. these 'rules' were the condition of inclusion. these were: the rule of law; tolerance; respect for women; and the principle of a 'fair go'. [these are all taken from various australian govt documents on multiculturalism]

the rule of law - others would be better placed than me to speak at length about this one, but i do want to point out that refugees, workers, indigenous peoples and those subject to sexual harassment are increasingly being shut out of the courts all in the name of limiting vexatious or ambit claims. so much for the rule of law.

tolerance - well, tolerance is either the catchphrse of those who try and silence critics (as in the attribution of conflict to those who complain about their treatment), or it presupposes that which is to be tolerated as by definition unacceptable - that is, its something already defined as abnormal, but not enought o be beyond the pale.

respect for women - well, this one gets thrown in becasue, as we all know, otherly complexioned men are genetically predisposed to being abusinve toward women. a kind of missionary feminism and little more.

as for 'fair go' - do i really need to go into this one.

to be sure, it is important to use the contradictions of liberalism against itself, but that does not mean adopting the tenets of phraseology of liberalism as if they can be wielded in practice without the establishment of internal limits like racial or sexist ones. i am also reminded that even kant threatens to spill over into relativism and irrationalism, but sees it in time, and nips this possibility in the bud by the deft combination of 'natural difference' and mention of women.

cheers,

angela



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list