[Fwd: Re: Is Bad Writing Necessary?]

[kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca]

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:07:50 -0500 ssherman <ssherman at gborocollege.edu> wrote:

> ... if one part of the world oppresses another part (which we might call the 
south, or the third world), then to identify that part of the world(again, as 
say, 'the third world') is to participate in the oppressive structure.  If 
capitalism is an oppressive system, then to call it a system is to participate 
in it.

Errr... I'm missing a logical step here.  How about this: if you enjoy studying 
capitalism, there is always the threat of participating in it and supporting it 
as a means to further study the object of your enjoyment... which is similar to 
the critique of liberation theology's "preferential option for the poor" - if 
the poor possess moral courage or substantial virtue... then we'd better make 
sure the poor are always with us as our conscience!

> Analyzing the structures becomes akin to supporting them, and, although this 
may seem insane to most readers of this list, trust me I am not distorting 
their message.

This almost sounds like a critique of cynical reasoning (the idea that 
criticism is now the dominant ideology). The idea that criticism is "merely 
criticism" (and always "bad" criticism at that)... so I'm not sure if we stop 
talking about capitalism it will suddenly vanish... thinking through Zizek 
here... something that makes more sense to me is to change the way we think 
about it, disrupting our beautiful critique by revealing it to be the 
symptomatic fly swirling around a pile of shit.

ken