Alec Cat wrote:
>K (if you don't mind me calling you K) wrote:
No, as long as I can call you Alec Cat. People have a difficult time with SnitgrrRl. Don't have a klew as to why. But really Alec, as a fan of Butler and what's that other babe's n ame you mention every so often?, I'd a thunk you'd appreciate a little identity politics -- identity performance if you will.
Ahhh yes. Butler. You should read her early stuff on Hegel, if you haven't already. She inspired me to come up with "The ability of a mirror to reflect is conditioned by its opacity" (which is essentially what she's saying in too many words in your quote) After I read Subversion of Identity (was that the title, can't remember) I thought to myself. Well sheee-it! What is a working class chic supposed to do with this identity politics/performance stuff. I mean I could think of ways to perform other aspects of my identity, but this one, this one, working classness, *how* do you perform this? And everyone around me was hailing Butler's politics as where it was at, at the time anyway. And then I figured it out. I went to the next conference wearing polyester, snapping bubble gum, rollers in my hair, and oh yeah I popped open a can of Genny Screamers (Genessee Cream Ale, gold and green can, only upstate NYers can appreciate this). And boy oh boy did that do wonders for the state of class struggle, let me tell you.
>I'm interested in the ontological/epistemological
>stuff. I just started
>Judith Butler's Psychic Life of Power and in the
Well I have not read Psychic Life. Not sure if I want to. But I see that Butler's prose continues to leave much to be desired. And, indeed, that one line there made me pause:
"The formula "I have never loved" someone of similar gender and "I have never lost" any such person predicates the "I" on the "never-never" of that love and loss"
Butler is working *much* too hard at the playing around with language thang. Gad, it's embarassing.
And what about us bisexual queers, ey? This really annoys me, this either/or. Well, I know she doesn't mean it this way, but what WHAT am I supposed to think of myself without a never never to call my own cause it's both/and for me?!!! . But seriously, would you and anyone else be interested in having a go at reading through this on List? They're doing that on another list, but they're reading Dostoevsky and I want to read some academic must read or something along those lines.
>I'm really interested in this. Tell us more!
Well if your into the poMos, ain't epistemology and ontology dead? Or were you interested in the nuke dump? That one deals with Laclau and Mouffe, Iris Young, Habermas. Pretty scary ey?
Snit