>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.<
strains of habermas, right? (odd isn't it how people can transform a mildly self-critical remark into the occassion to discover a criticism, isn't it?)
> 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."<
yes.
>> 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.<
there are no safe spaces. and that in some ways is the issue. no one affirms racism or sexism on this list, because that, well, is not a priveliged discourse here. but people still practice it and articulate it all the time. and since the priveliged discourses here runs some of the spectrum of leftism and progressivism, the ways in which racism and sexism are expressed, as well as defended from the accusation (if it's ever made), are generally quite sophisticated deflections and legitimations.
Angela _________