<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>yoshie,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>i wrote a response to butler that nlr didn't
take--though their reasons we're interesting, it's a different story. (i've
attached it, just in case you want to peruse). but i think both butler (and
fraser, to a lesser extent) ask the wrong questions and frame them badly. by my
lights, neither place the "institutions" that they are talking
about--historically, economically, socially, geopolitically (etc). for example,
as fraser pointed out in her response to butler, judy, in writing an (extremely
dubious) history of the alliances between feminism, psychoanalysis, and marxism,
trots out mauss and levi-strauss to question the opposition between culture and
economy in neo-liberal industrialized societies. hello? likewise, for all their
talk about "capitalism," neither of them seems to have developed a
notion of what that means, what its history is (etc), what might or might not be
the "original" inflections of its current regime of accumulation
(etc.) and attendant cultural forms. and, of course, all this depends on the
location you're in and talking about. so, when fraser talks about gays not
having participatory parity, i'm asking "who? where?" not because i
think they do, but because "parity" is a vaguely defined promise, and
"culture" is a pretty nebulous agent of oppression.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>so, this is a long way of saying that i agree with you.
"relations of recognition" seems like another way to talk about
bourdieu's notion of habitus. and that, as we know, is built on the notion of
distinction, and (as he argues, but no one seems to mind) an historically
particular moment in the history of capital (his material in _distinction_ is
drawn from the period from '56-64). another of his points, however, is to
question the opposition between a specific historical moment and a generalizable
principle--something neither butler nor fraser does. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>all of which, i guess, is to say "we have to name the
system" (as jameson says) so we know what we're working on.
"heterosexism and capitalism" don't do the trick, as far as i'm
concerned.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>best</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>christian</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>