Right on in re Butler. Were I in a generous spirit, though, I might suggest that Butler does not abandon "determination" altogether. I suspect that what she would argue for -- I am not going to re-read that sentence -- would be a more punctual or ephemeral or "articulatory" (as you yourself said) or "contingent" notion of determination/totality, sans any "last" or "ultimate" or "a priori" factor/instance.
I do not buy this either, both because the "democratic" impulse underwriting this is shoddy, and because it is further underwritten by a disavowal of marxism. Or, in other words, a disavowal or ignorance of structure, of social theory, or of any theory of history -- as such. To the charge that this sounds vulgar, the best retort is: nothing is more vulgar and reductive than continually ducking a critique of political economy. I do value Butler's work overall, and have learned much from her (in re. the performativity of gender/identity, for example). Still, that award-winning quote certainly doesnt betray any actual knowledge of Althusser. As for "fuid" or non-economistic notions of totality/structure, he was quite good on this:
".... in History, these instances -- the superstructures, etc. -- are never seen to step respectfully aside when their work is done or, when the Time comes, as his pure phenomena, to scatter before His Majesty the Economy as he strides along the royal road of the Dialectic. From the first moment to the last, the lonely hour of the "last instance" never comes." ("Contradiction and Overdetermination," 113).
cheers, Daniel
At 07:33 PM 23-12-98 -0500, Christian wrote:
>i know doug has a different take on this, cause he's had to deal with the
>actually existing marxists who do indeed tend to think deterministically.
>but i don't have a lot of patience for this kind of rhetoric, since it never
>addresses this little thing called actually existing determinations--complex
>or otherwise. judy takes the *theoretical* idea that its more "democratic"
>or "nuanced" to deny a final determining instance to mean that it's
>impossible that there are determinations at all--economic or otherwise. it
>might be true in some instances, but it seems to me those are historical
>questions, not ones that can be decided in advance.
---------------------------------------------------- Daniel Vukovich English; Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 vukovich at uiuc.edu 217-344-7843 ----------------------------------------------------