Henry wrote:
>Perhaps it is my own fault since English is a learned
language rather
>than a native language with me, so I lack the
necessary skills to
>understand obscure humor and sacarsm.
Well, clearly, as you say below, it may not be entirely your fault. On the other hand...
>The other disadavantage is that I
>only got on the list recently and was unable to
follow the drift of some
>of the verbal acrobatics in the middle of a
continuing exchange or the
>manners of this subculture. Consequently, I felt
unfairly excluded which
>as you know is a form of oppression.
Well, I'm not certain about this insofar as it' a claim that is rather too broad as it stands right now. It is only oppressively unfair if you feel so when those feelings of exclusion result from *systemic* social inequality. In other words, if I happen upon a group of people and overhear their conversation and can't quite figure out what the word 'phat' means then this isn't a form of oppression. It may be the result of social divisions, but unless those divisions result in a serious deprivation of status, income, wealth, prestige, and material/social well-being then it is a form of social differentiation, not oppression.
When I read phrases like "gradual socialization of investment" or "insufficient adjustment to manufacturing overcapacity, market by insufficient exit and too much entry." (Brenner thread) and don't quite understand them, then this isn't a form of oppression. And yet, some would argue that the latter is a form of oppression. Under capitalism, such intellectual discourses are privileged in very material ways as evidenced by the fact that economics departments generally receive more funding than the humanities and other social sciences. We could relate all this to capitalist class oppression, but I shan't bother here.
Arriving in the middle of a conversation isn't enough to claim unfair oppression. However, it *might* be fair to say that I'm privileged as an native of the English language (if I am that; you don't know this for a fact) and I am benefiting from that privilege in ways that I don't even realize. And, of course, I am inadvertantly harming people psychologically and/or materially in ways that I might not realize simply by using that language and taking it for granted. Okay. However, when it comes to delineating privilege/oppression then I would argue that there are differences that *make a difference* and some privileges that matter more and ought to be the focus of more concern than others.
>Speaking of oppression, one may argue that what I was
experiencing when
>I read your post that led to my intemperate protest
was the oppression
>of language imperialism and intellectural
segregation, justified or not.
On the other hand, I replied very seriously, straightforwardly, without irony, sarcasm or parody to your intial complaint. Yet, it was at this point that you decided to delete me. (And as an aside, irony, sarcasm, parody have historically been the tools of the oppressed) Again, I don't see how your original response was motivated by a sense of exclusion.
Indeed, your original claim was that my post to Frances lacked an intellectual basis. I fail to see how the question "What does 'ma soeur' mean?" or signing off as "SnitgrrRl, working up to a snit frenzy of feeling patronized" was incomprehensible to you. Indeed, if you truly found my meaning completely obscure then you couldn't possibly have replied to criticize the exchange.
>As you may agree, unintended oppression is still
oppression to the
>victim, and when one is oppressed, all are oppressed.
>That is why I felt I had the right to speak for the
whole list.
Nope. I'm afraid that this doesn't follow. If it is an oppression felt by you and other non-English speaking subscribers, then it doesn't follow that the entire list is oppressed. So you aren't speaking for the entire list, only non-English speaking subscribers. And, therefore, you should have stated that from the start.
In fact, other listers may well enjoy such humorous exchanges, may have fully understood their intellectual bases (indeed, T Kruse seemed to get the point well enough), and indeed some may have even enjoyed the mutual exchange of flames. Why they might have felt oppressed by the loss of these sorts of exchanges. Now, if you subscribe to essentialism and a standpoint epistemology then maybe you have a case. I don't know, you'll have to speak more to this.
It also doesn't follow that you accurately express the wishes of other non-English speaking subscribers. For example, when I was in grad school and taking courses in social theory, a number of students made the claim that the work of Habermas, the French theorists, and the like were unfairly racist, sexist, and classist because of the difficulty of their language. And yet, the funny thing was it generally wasn't the case that people of color, working class people, or international students agreed with this claim. They really didn't feel that white middle class women were speaking for them and their felt needs. And there was yet another faction that maintained that theory in general was unfairly racist, sexist, and classist. You may know the sorts of intellectual divisions of which I speak: the divide between those who think that one should simply go out and do research and forget reading A. Smith, Marx, Weber, Gramsci, Foucault, etc as opposed to those who think that social theory and research are inextricably
intertwined. So, I think it absurd when white middle class women claim to be speaking for themselves, not only AS white middle class women, but also FOR people of color, international students, and working class students.
I think it equally problematic for you to do so here, solely on the basis of having just subscribed to a list.
>Relativism does not apply to questions of oppression.
>Personally, I have been a victim of British
colonialism all my life, so
>I qualify as an expert on oppression from the victim
side.
And yet, I'm a woman and you're a man. I may or may not be a number of other identities, but we'll leave that aside. For now. Moving from this claim you make above, isn't it the case that I, too, can speak to oppression? Do you not think that it possible that the norms of academic discourse might be biased on behalf of men, whatever their race, ethnicity, nationality? Do you think that your oppressed identity trumps mine and, if so, how?
>(I have more to say about language
>imperialism upon your indication of interest. I now
have an aversion
>against typing long postings since I had been told it
is an imposition.)
Well I think it appropriate to send on lengthy posts. There is always the chance that you'll be deleted, though likely no one will inform you of this. Thus far, I haven't heard anyone complain of length in any serious way.
Well, now that I think about it, Paula does get concerned about size. Specifically, Paula gets concerned about the fact that men have bigger penises than women and are therefore aggressive and whatnot because they feel a natural desire to protect their exposed and altogether too large penises. I fear that this is something of an insider's joke, but rest assured, it does have a theoretical basis: radical feminism. So, I don't mean to exclude you or other non English speaking folks or people new to the list; indeed, my desire to bring this up actually stems from my desire to include Paula who is just resurfacing after a lengthy absense. Paula, I should add also represents the radical feminist position, at times, on this list. So, in including Paula, I'm also embracing all those silent others who she might stand for.
>When two Christians were thrown into the lion's den,
all three being
>started to pray.
>Curious, the Roman Emperor asked about the purpose of
the praying.
>The first Christian indicated he was asking God to
make it fast and
>painless.
>The second confessed that he was asking God to make
the lion eat the
>other Christian first.
>The lion said he was merely saying grace before a
good meal.
But isn't this story illustrative of something that you didn't actually intend: the final punch line deters the reader from thinking about and asking why the Roman Emperor was throwing the christians into the lion's den in the first place, forcing the lion (nature or perhaps labor) to do his dirty work so he didn't have to sully his own hands by killing the christians himself. And the final punch line overshadows the earlier 'joke' in which we laugh at how one christian pits himself against the other christian, failing to see how they share the same interest in fighting the Roman Emperor.
SnitgrrRl