Charles Brown wrote:
> But, Angela,
>
> Whatever the name of Butler's theory,
> that perspective doesn't have a
> monopoly on the thinking of young
> people today. I have 25 young
> people here who are Black and
> proud, African centered, admires
> of Malcolm X, whatever.
> They don't agree with decentering
> their subjects.
i didn't say that pomo stuff had a monopoly on the thinking on younger people. just that what is immediately intelligible to one generation of activists is not so to another. this has as much to do with shifts in how each generation experiences the world and also experience particular struggles. what i would say though, in relation to what you noted above, is that there is already a kind of decentering going on here, i.e.., when they say they are 'black and proud' and 'african-centred' at the same time, aren't they expressing what is only a part of 'black': african (whether it is understood as a geographical place or in utopian terms) is not exhaustive of being black in the world, or even the US. so either african is universalized in a way that it should not, or they are confronted with the difficulties of doing so. to confront the latter and to have its difficulties emerge in whatever context, theory or activism and - whether they decide it is a problem or not - is to open this up to a kind of decentering. now, i'm not a fan of butlers as i said, so i don't accept the ways in which she speaks of decentering, but the problem (maybe in a different way) arises the minute you or i begin to define what it means to be black, or a woman, etc., since to define it always runs the risk of declaring a false unity of a false universalisation. maybe this explains why today there are ten groups, each presenting a specific identity within 'black', where a decade ago there might have been only three, and this isn't to count those groups that are for - say - black feminists or asian lesbians. my response to this hasn't been to call for more proliferation of the identities, but to try and figure out whether or not there might be a way to organise that does not a) lead to fragmentation (and sometimes competition over who is more oppressed); and b) that does establish a kind of unity but not one which is based on an implicit exclusion through a series of universalisations. is this possible? maybe. but i think a big question that can do with as much help, even from theorists who i will not agree with at the end of the day.
>
>
> You are correct, very correct
> to point to the SELF in self-determination.
> This is a critical point in developing
> the Marxist theory of the individual,
> psychology, the self, identity,
> subjectivity, consciousness,
> self-consciousness,
> personality ,whatever. Marx's
> writing on alienation is another
> big chunk. Marx's 1844 Manuscripts
> are a major thesis of the self.
>
> Freud is not a dead dog,
> either. There are Marxist
> sublations of Freud.
>
> I'd critique classic Marxist
> theory of the self with
> feminism or woman/man
> relations, myself. But in a manner
> that preserves and overcomes
> the classical Marxist approaches.
charles, i'm breathing a sigh of relief.... i was beginning to think that those defending self-determination as the most appropriate political practice hadn't even bothered to take it seriously enough to think of what it means. i agree with you about marx and freud. i kinda like the grundrisse and capital best - the stuff on the relation between relative surplus value and the emergence of the working class into/through class struggle strikes me as one of the more interesting bits on the relation b/n identity and politics. also the 'critique of the gotha program', for its comments on labour and nature, which i think is good to remember as against what some marxists think productive labour means - 'men's (usually manual) work' - or that the designation 'productive labour' is a badge of honour. i digress, but only slightly, since these are some of the point of dispute within marxism and class politics generally over identity.
> But everything I have read
> of and about Foucault, Butler
> et al. so far (whatever the name of
> their approach) throws out
> the Marxist baby with the
> bathwater. It becomes
> idealism, a new supernaturalism.
sure, i agree with you. it is more often than nor idealist; but just because it is doesn't mean it may not happen on a few questions which are worth pursuing, in a different way perhaps, but nonetheless important. this is why folks on lbo are doing a reading of butler as you know - not because many agree with it, or will even agree with it when we're done, but in order to see if there are ways in which butler sees some of these issues that can be helpful for developing our own understandings. also, because butler is hard going for many who aren't familiar with this stuff, it helps to read it with others, many of whom will bring something quite different to the reading. i'm looking forward to it. also, marx may tell us why power is organised in the way that it is, but even foucault and butler, might have something to tell us about this. like, i think foucault's insistence that power is not a zero-sum relation is important (not original, but that he reminds us is important); and i would also think that his attention ot micro-instances of power - the school, the prison, etc. - whilst it has numerous problem (like a kind of new sociologism), may well be a sign of the socialisation of capital, its historical movement outside the specific location of the factory. these are issues worth exploring, and maybe because of the dogmatism of many marxists, we need these other writers to prompt questions that we may even find answers to in marx, but which the dogmatists have avoided because they have an attachment to only one reading of marx, and refuse to even ask different questions of his writings.
>
>
> You shouldn't think we are
> not conscious of our analysis
> of the self.
i didn't think everyone was, but was plainly bewildered by louis' insistence that he did not bother with one, and that nor should he make any time to read stuff about it.
cheers,
angela