> 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.
I guess my underlying (utopian?) idea here is that if it is abolished from speech, and abolished from thought, it will also be abolished in reality.
> ... 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.
I certainly don't think reality and words can be separated. The Lacanian point here is that it is more radical to change then entire horizon of our thinking than to simply adjust a few of the parts. When something becomes unsayable, and then unthinkable, it necessarily causes a shift in the dynamics of our enjoyment (the enjoyment derived from racism or sexism). So the field shifts... and racism and sexism would not longer serve as object causes of desire...
> 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.
Do you think this is the case with Zizek? - that he is separating speech acts from reality? I don't this so. For Zizek, speech *determines* how we see and what we do. Now there are entanglements with this, drive and so on, but speech, through and through, serves as the source of our desire (desire is always the desire of the Other, the Other as found in language) (a bit reductive here, the Other isn't limited to language alone).
> 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" (snip) ....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.
Zizek and Salecl have both talked about ethnicity and sex as "fundamental antagonisms" - so, I think, they both recognize that the strategy of censoring is a limited strategy... it might solve certain problems, and create others, but it doesn't abolish "the real."
> 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.
Yes! (it's nice to share some reference points with someone... I was getting weary of defending the existence of psychoanalysis).
> 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.
Agreed, within certain (not so clearly defined) limits. Something important here is... tact? ... the exercise of good judgement, practical wisdom... phronesis. We have to be both cautions and flexible when talking with each other, because we're fragile, and we break easily. One interesting approach that Chomsky has talked about is that he writes social criticism out of a moral obligation, and derives no enjoyment from it. This is interesting. Chomsky, no Lacanian for sure, has avoided, at least publically (and I won't question this) the idea that he's actually obsessed with horror and injustice (ie. derives enjoyment from it). John Horgan makes fun of him for this is that awful book The End of Science, saying, basically, that he gets off on it. But I think Chomsky has an important point, along with the Lacanians, that we can talk about racism and sexism openly... but the danger is identification with the discourse. Once one identifies with the discourse, one will start looking for (and creating) racism and sexism to fuel their jouissance. So, we have to be careful.
> 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.
Maybe not always ?
> 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...
Yes. But I think there is a difference between an e-list dedicated to anti-racist and anti-sexist strategies and an open political forum, where some of the members are and identify with racist and sexist policies. In a way, there is more room for discussion here, a (somewhat) safe space perhaps?, because someone affirms racism and sexism would be booted off.
> 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?
On this list? No, probably not. On the national news? It might get you killed.
> 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?
My apologies, it was April's recommendation back in March (was it really that long ago!) when several of us were debating the "western canon" and "racism etc." And yes, I Postone's critique was quite good.
ken