Alice down under in Wonder

rc-am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Sun Oct 10 09:15:48 PDT 1999


ken wrote:


>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 _________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list