-----Original Message----- From: Rob Schaap <carob at dynamite.com.au> To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu <pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: Wednesday, 17 February 1999 4:42 Subject: [PEN-L:3474] Re: Doug's question III
>G'day Angela,
>
>You write:
>
>>a brief citation from zizek (who's very casting as a postmodernist,
>>when he is not, and when all proofs of him not being a postmodernist
>>fail to make a dent on this particular fantasy, should at least make
>>us pause about what is at stake in these little crusades...):
>
>Who called Zizek a pomo? That said, I'm with Lou Proyecht on this
(hope he
>doesn't mind - I'm sure it's only for a little while, Lou). We're
chucking
>out Marx where Marx actually has plenty to offer - and replacing that
line
>of thinking with an awful lot of conjecture that just doesn't wash,
imho.
>
>>"To the racist, the 'other' is either a workaholic stealing our jobs
>>or an idler living on our labour, and it is quite amuusing to notice
>>the haste with which one passes from reproaching the other with a
>>refusal to work to reproaching him for the theft of work. The basic
>>paradox is that our Thing is conceived as something inaccesible to
the
>>other and at the same time threatened by him. According to Freud,
the
>>same paradox defines the experience of castration, which within the
>>subject's psychic economy, appears as something that 'really cannot
>>happen', but we are nonetheless horrified by its prospect. ... What
>>we conceal by imputing to the Other the theft of enjoyment is the
>>traumatic fact that we never possessed what was allegedly stolen
from
>>us." from Tarrying with the Negative (203).
>
>The first bit has a bit of authority about it, but I fail to see why
we need
>to make the Freudian link - talk of the phallus and some metaphorical
fear
>of castration only ever (a) takes away the spotlight from the real
issue,
>and (b) does not even serve the function a metaphor should - ie
offering a
>seemingly unrelated phenomenonm to suggest a new or clearer way of
seeing
>the object. The phallic/castration stuff transforms what's important
rather
>than sheds light on it, imho, and at the cost of comprehensibility,
too.
>
>>the issue then is not that the fear of castration is what causes the
>>racism (as pop-psych accounts have it), but that racism works
because
>>it echoes the structural logic of this 'fear of castration', which
is
>>what transforms something from an error or simple prejudice to
>>ideology and the desire/enjoyment which ideology requires in order
to
>>continue to work 'without and against proof'. the fear of the 'mass
>>production of black kids' is i think clearly a fear of the other's
>>enjoyment - all that fucking going on, which is simultaneously held
as
>>the denial of the white blue collar worker's own enjoyment, own
>>desires.
>
>On the other hand, an occasional return to Marx might be
therapeutic - just
>so's we don't forget why we're all here. The big fella says we
invent
>systems of comprehending the world that makes sense of, and may thus
>naturalise, our particular mode of suffering. All we want out of our
>ideology is that it be coherent - and as it has to be coherent with
what's
>going on, it is effectively both enabled *and constrained* by our
economic
>reality. Whether racism or sexism is part of that system is neither
here
>nor there - where-ever market relations predominate there is, by
definition,
>alienation happening. We all wear that. Whomsoever has the clout to
soften
>the blow may do so by trying to divert it towards others - isms tend
to
>ensue.
>
>If the isms du jour is/are racism and/or sexism, the thing on
channels like
>this is not to waste time on concocting metaphors.
>
>The thing is to do what Marx did - the thing Lacan said Freud got
from Marx
>in fact (something you once told me). Treat racism and sexism as
symptoms.
>And treat transformatiuons within them as symptoms. Core societies
treat
>their annointed others differently than they used to, I reckon (even
if
>we're in a bit of a hole at the moment on both counts, it is hard to
see the
>14-inch girdle or the whip making a widespread comeback - we despise
and
>persecute a little more subtly than that now, simply 'coz people
won't wear
>obviousness in these things anymore). Anyway, the most important
thing
>about this is that it all points at transformations in our economic
reality.
>
>
>Slavery, and consequently the form of racism it engendered, ran up
against a
>brick wall, accumulation-wise. Sure, slavery went out a lot more
quickly
>than did the ism it produced. But the ism is dying - it's lost its
material
>foundation. Sexual/gender oppression has changed because (a) it had
the
>same sort of shortcomings as slavery, and (b) because the role of the
>proletarian has changed - women are worth more to our economy on the
>shop-floor now than ever, because capitalism wants different sorts of
labour
>from its human factors now than it used to - sorts at which women are
at
>least the equal of men. And, of course, capitalism must keep
commodifying
>if it is to keep accumulating - women can't be doing all that
uncommodified
>stuff forever; it robs capital of opportunities! And waged women
make
>better consumers, too.
>
>And during these transitions, white boys have to get used to these
'others'
>on turf they thought was theirs - the isms change shape accordingly.
As a
>perceived assault on their identity. But that identity can't last -
it too
>no longer has roots in the mode of production. 'The phallus' was an
>expression of a materiality long past.
>
>Even economism is changing! The privateer-economists (the Mt Pelerin
types)
>got capitalists into sectors where they needed to get, as their
profit
>projections in old sectors were falling. Today we get a sniff of the
>problems that ensue, and economists are forced reluctantly to
reexamine
>their conclusions. It'll take a fair while before they get to their
>assumptions (although Stiglitz and even Thurow and Krugman have
gotten
>tantalisingly close of late), but the process has started. As the
big fella
>said, we tend to address only the problems our economic reality
allows us to
>identify.
>
>Er, if all that sounds patronisingly simplistic, it's only 'coz I'm
simply
>simple (ie. not patronisingly so). I just wanted to remind the more
>sanguine posties here of stuff they know but could easily forget to
factor
>into their thinking - like Foucault and Baudrillard came to forget
it.
>
>Your friendly vulgar leftie,
>Rob.
>
>