>
> Butler's gig is in the sphere of cultural (and I suppose literary)
> criticism. Knocking her for not being a rigorous philosopher is like
> charging Marx with being a shoddy Physicist. Apples and Oranges, see?
Don't know if you can draw a clear distinction between philosophy and cultural studies. CS people use philosophical concepts to analyze popular culture or follow Heidegger in believing that popular cultural practices reveal something important about human existence (being-in-the-world). In Butler's case she uses a lot of Hegelian concepts. Same with Adorno and Jameson. Hegel is, infamously, one of the most obscure philosophers so it only follows that people who use his framework will be obscure. I'm sure if Marx thought physics was pertinent to his project, he would have been a rigorous physicist. Not knocking Butler or anyone else for not being a rigorous philosopher, but knocking them for not being rigorous in any sense of the word. Good old political economy is multi-disciplinary encompassing economics in the narrow sense, history, sociology and social psychology. Keynes is an example of this, he still gets attacked for bringing psychology into his explanations but I think that is one of his strong points. I'm certainly not one to argue for the autonomy of disciplines.
>
>
> >The truth should never be sacrificed in the name of politics.
>
> No, but in the current reactionary political environment, I think people
> of the Left should close ranks to a certain extent. I'm not nostalgic
> for Stalinism or the Popular Front, but it's high time to cut the
> internecine warfare and start fighting back.
Yes, but disagreement is healthy. Intellectuals will differ on what questions they think are most important and the means to go about answering them. This includes left intellectuals, some of whom think the key is culture and others who think the key is still the traditional concern with political economy. On issues like sexuality and desire, I think the most promising path was opened by Darwin and his followers in evolutionary biology like George Williams and John Maynard Smith both wrote great, yet quite technical, books on human sexuality.
> It doesn't help matters
> when professed "left business observers" quote approvingly from
> reactionary sources like the NAS. I'm sure the Right laughs its
> collective ass of at all the petty, incestuous fighting on the Left.
Probably, but the left does the same, laughing at the faction fight between 'family values' conservatives, economic nationalists like Pat Buchanan and economic conservatives like Clinton. The right can laugh all they want, they aren't important and besides they don't know what they're talking about. What's important is how the working class--the agent of social change-- perceives the left and what the left is doing to sink deeper roots in the working class. Criticising the right only makes them stronger.
>
> While the Milton Friedmans and Jerry Falwells put aside their differences
> in order to seize power, we're rehashing Sokal/Social Text ad nauseum.
Differences between the factions on the right often prevent them from seizing power e.g. where I live in British Colombia. Where the right is divided, the left can take power (electorally speaking) e.g. Allende's Chile.Sometimes the left can play these differences off against one another, giving the left some power it would not have otherwise had e.g. the communist parties in India and Italy. I think the Democrats and Republicans are differing factions on the right, so things are really screwed in the U.S. There is definately a big space open for the left to exploit in U.S. political culture. It just a question of doing it; the usual education and organizing.
>
> Yeah, but there's a difference between sharing certain beliefs with
> certain personalities on the Right and actually quoting approvingly from
> right-wing sources in order to attack fellow leftists. Jay Gould once
> said that he could hire one half of the working class to kill the other
> half. These days, one half of the intellectual Left attacks the other
> half.
I think if you're interested in the truth you will investigate any source. What matters is whether the information is true or not and not the political views of the source. You have to be careful with truth, not with the political nature of sources.
As Poncho said to the Cisco Kid "Lets Win!".
Sam Pawlett
>
>
> Contra Paul Weyrich, I don't think the 'culture wars' are over, and I
> must say I disagree with the Baffler folks that the culture wars are
> entirely a sham fight. True, blowhards like Aronowitz and Ross like to
> overrate their own importance in the grand scheme of things, but that
> doesn't mean the threat of William Bennett forcing Universities to adopt
> the curriculum at St. Johns isn't real.
>
> What's next, Leftists supporting the attacks on Rigoberta Menchu?
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]