I can't talk about the others you mention, but I think Rorty's point, simply, is that the sympathetic recognition of differences which enables the beginning of dialogue is _not a matter of theory. C.f., my quote in my last post (about Derrida, but just as relevant):
"In that book I claim that "theory" cannot do much to bring the excluded in from the margins--to enlarge the community whose consensus sets the standards of objectivity--that that other kinds of writing (notably novels and newspaper stories) can do quite a lot."
I think that the last bit, novels, etc., is what's really important for Rorty. Of course, it makes him a bit old fashioned for most. But, I think, I would agree that a film like _And the Band played on_ (or the book of course) can get more people to _accept_ the idea of dialogue with gays, than any paper in Radical Philosophy. If you think that the theoretical critique of the system is the shit, then the latter appeals to you. If you have a "Rortyian" notion of politics, then the former is your thing.
J.
John St. Clair University of South Florida Department of Philosophy Cooper 107 Tampa, FL 33647
Office: CPR 267 Phone: 813-974-5896 Hours: M 3-5, T 10-12 http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~jstclair/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 6:42 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: queers
>
>
> John St. Clair wrote:
>
> >I'm unsure what to make of what you mean by "being against the
> queers." If
> >you're asking if Rorty is homophobic, then I think the answer is no. If
> >you're asking would he object to certain forms of essentialist queer
> >identity-theory, then the answer is probably yes. But let's not confuse
> >identity politics with the politics of identity-theory.
>
> No, I don't think he's homophobic, but, and I admit I've read very little
> of his stuff, my sense is that he wishes the queers would just behave. And
> that people like him - and I mean the folks Katha Politt listed in her
> column, like Gitlin, Moore, Tomasky (as well as Rorty, and all the other
> folks scribbling in the Nation's first principles series) - think, as she
> put it, "that 'the left' has gone up the garden path of 'identity
> politics,' when it should be focusing on unifying large majorities around
> the traditional Democratic Party agenda of strong unions, public spending
> and respect for patriotism, Christianity, and the family." I
> think that's a
> pretty fair picture, and I take that to mean that while none of
> these folks
> are personally homophobic (or misogynist or racist), they
> nonetheless think
> those sorts of issues shouldn't be talked about very loudly because they
> alienate the masses. As if the masses weren't of all sexes, persuasions,
> and colors.
>
> Doug
>
>