> Ok, she extends corsets to silicon implants, big deal (I don't mean
> to be bilious). Why does this need to be said with 8 syllable words?
Because corsets are NOT identical to silicon implants: the quantitative extension of technology and production rebounds into qualitative changes. Corsets were directly linked to the Victorian marriage-market in a way which isn't true for people today; everything is endlessly mediated, by convoluted processes of cultural formation (people watch TV stars and are influenced by this in gradual and subtle ways). Late capitalism is not early capitalism.
> I find her "theoretical exposition" sharp only in that it looks
> formidable. I find it pretty much empty of anything new, though. I'm
> still waiting for answers to two questions: 1) What is new here?; 2)
> What is new here that must be expressed in the way she expresses it?
There is something quite new about Butler: she's theorizing the lesbian movement of the Nineties, in much the same way that Foucault theorized the gay lib movement of the Seventies. And she's also saying some interesting stuff about the preconditions of contemporary micropolitical movements -- why it's hard to motivate people to join unions, work in their community, resist the ravages of capital, etc.
But of course, none of this can be computed on little Excel charts, so it's not important to real, loin-girdling disciplines which Crunch Numbers and Calculate Graphs of Objective Reality (and since we all know, without being told, what Objective Reality is, we don't need to discuss the thing, now do we). Next slide, please...
-- Dennis