>I spent about six weeks back in '99 doing nothing much but going through
>that whole Introduction to Bodies that Matter over and over again,
>sentence by sentence. And there is no real difficulty in it, as your
>commentary reveals, there is only a pretence of translating historical
>materialism into Lacanian double-speak. No one has ever shown how there
>is a gain involved. Doug repeatedly reposts this fragment of the
>Introduction, but he has never explained how it, concretely, illumines
>the topic at hand; without out exception one can make the point without
>using Butler. She is pretty consistently redundant.
This is a classic. Either she's hopelessly opaque or hopelessly simple-minded. Sometimes she's both. Which is it?
Doug