some scattered thoughts:
sure, one option would be to remove the sense of racism and sexism from speech acts entirely, to make it refer only to institutional, structural, or whatever other formulation one likes that would separate people from structures. and, for most occasions, i'm inclined to think that's quite a good strategy. which is perhaps why jim h and i, despite what i'll say below, have similar responses to the rhetorical and political focus of much of the left on extreme manifestations of racism, hate speech legislation, etc. i think it diverts attention from those politics and practices which will never be signalled with racist and sexist epithets but are nonetheless more dangerous, which provide the context for the ubiquity of racism and sexism, and that do function as a kind of ongoing and very enjoyable embrace between left and right sect-reproduction. but that, unfortunately though interestingly, is just a liberalism in reverse: that reality can be distinguished from words and it is unaffected by them -- especially when it comes to the reality of something like an e-list, where the whole space is excessively worded.
the problem with pursuing zizek into censorious mode (censoring the charge itself in the abstract) is, as kelley says, that it regards racism and sexism as existing entirely within the realm of speech acts. but, speech acts is all we do here on the list, which has the effect of making racism and sexism, as well as a discussion of them, more pronounced and more troubling.
if i write "no one, least of all those of us who think these are not a matter of personal whim, would deny that they are racist or sexist", then this should have been a fairly clear gesture toward those who here have both claimed that racism and sexism are not a matter of intentional decision (that it consists of structures which exceed any of our intentions) and who, simultaneously, respond to claims that they are being (in this instance) sexist with nothing other than denial. that is, such a denial from this perspective is absurd. and what it shows clearly is that those who are often most keen to dispense their judgements on others are absolutely unwilling to countenance such implications in regard to themselves, thus flying in the face of what they simultaneously assert about the ubiquity of racism and sexism. and it's this initial judgement that i would say yes, is indeed about enjoyment: that is, the enjoyment of distinction, superiority, the fantasy of being outside fantasy... a fantasy held onto at all cost, including a refusal to deal at all with what they claim they are most concerned with: racism, sexism, etc.
i happen to think there is always space for that discussion and debate, and i would much prefer it if it was banalised by a recognition that racism and sexism permeates what we do here than to shift it into the realm of rhetorical insult (as if it is some kind of wilful malevolence), which is largely and unfortunately where it remains now. and, it's as insult that it becomes enjoyment and the basis for identification, both for those who do the calling and those who are called. that is, there should always be a debate and discussion on whether or not some comment or perspective is racist. what happens more often than not however is that discussion is halted, usually at the line of 'if a woman says x is sexist then it is true'; this is all too troubling so we should stop now; 'you are being racist when you say x'; 'you are/you aren't'; etc...
what would it hurt other than my leftist pride if someone said i was being racist? i'll ask for evidence and i will most likely debate it, but it doesn't destroy my sense of self. why should it? what do i stand to lose other than my fantasy of being outside ideology?
ps. i can't recall mentioning gilroy, but moishe postone does do a fine critique of habermas in _Time, Labour and Social Domination_ doesn't he?
Angela _________
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999 17:43:37 +1000 rc-am <rcollins at netlink.com.au> wrote:
> on the thorny issue of sexism and racism:
> a) no one, least of all those of us who think these are
not a matter of personal whim, would deny that they are
racist or sexist...
Angela,
We talked about this a bit on method-and-theory... but i was wondering if you could spell out what you mean here by racism and sexism. I must admit, I tend to use fairly specific and narrow definitions. Following Zizek and Salecl, I've really started to wonder if "calling someone out" for being racist or sexist is such a good strategy. I must emphasize the idea of strategy here. Usually the approach goes like this: if someone is using jargon that has racist or sexist implications, but not direct references, the strategy has been identity that person as a racist or sexist in a public forum. The problem, as Zizek points out, is that this *legitimates* sexist and racist discourse. By responding to it, the speaker can then be empowered to use explicity, knowing and deliberate, racist and sexist comments - which then facilitates identification and transference (thus increasing the popularity of sexist and racist language in politics). I suspect the dynamics are different for each political region. In the US, a high profile person would likely not get away with openly being a racist (advocating slavery for instance) (some things have become so forbidden that they are unpronounceable and, eventually, unthinkable). Although homophobic, sexist, and nationalist rhetoric are still fairly welcome. I might be misjudging the political landscape here by a long shot. I'm thinking of a couple Canadian examples, where political folks have had to step down because of racist insinuations (in particular, the head of the separatist party who blamed the failure of the quebec separatist issue on "the ethnic vote") - and the same thing hasn't happened when sexist or homophobic comments have been made. Forget nationalism.
So my point is - if we use broad definitions of sexism and racism, and we use them, apply them to individuals in a public discourse - doesn't this threaten to make these ideas more widespread. If you are asking me if I'm supporting censorship here - you're damn right. I think people should be free to say these things, but as a strategy, if I was a journalist, I wouldn't report it. I wouldn't pay any attention to someone at all who was making deliberate racist and sexist comments (unless it became widespread, in which case a different strategy would be required). Imagine this: if sexist and racism rhetoric wasn't reported... if people used it and people started to turn their backs, it would first become unpronouceable. Then, it would become unthinkable (what fades from speech fades from memory). This doesn't necessarily mean that the political economy would change... it might... but it would change the rhetoric and the way in which we think about things.
I'm pretty uncertain about all of this and I'd like to talk about it some more.
ken
ps. thanks for the gilroy ref (way back) - I'm using the first chapter of Black Atlantic in my course. I particularly liked his underlying critique of Habermas, which Moshie Postone also notes in a different way and in a different context, that it isn't speech alone that possesses cognitive value. It strikes me that antiphony (call and response) is tremendously important.