[lbo-talk] Butler

[wrobert at uci.edu]

The real problem with this argument is that it ignores the work of Butler
and Foucault.  Butler draws on material that examines the cultural
implications of biological discourse and the claim for Foucault becomes
even  more problematic given the extensive examination makes of medicine
in his work in History and Madness and Birth of the Clinic.  Foucault
looks at the profound impact that the creation of these sciences have on
the social.  Actually, when Foucault was asked about a inherent
homosexuality, he begged off the question on the basis that it was not in
his competence to answer.  There are a number of post-Foucaultian thinkers
have worked on this as well.  You could turn to Haraway's early work in
Primate Visions, Connolly's book in the theory out of bound's section,
etc.

      I think that the problem is that there is a fantasy that there is
somehow a 'biology' that somehow exists outside of social practices
that is somehow outside of the political.  You don't need Butler to
point out the problem with that.  You can turn to Gould or Lewontin
if all the feminism is freaking you out.

     As a last note, I think that the question of 'intellectual modesty'
is interesting.  My initial inclination it to read as polemical
gesture, ie my knowledge unlike the hubris of the theorists is
modest, therefore more sound.  But I feel that there is also an
attempt to point to something else, which has to do with the ability
of making universal claims.  In this case, it is a mistake to think
that the 'theory' of these discussions is making the same kind of
claims as the 'theory of economics (who probably would not call their
work theoretical in any case.)

       I suspect that this will have to be revisited after Jerry explains
where I got it wrong.... :)

                  robert wood


> It is the same with the ontological difference between the biological and
> the sociological.  There is no way to determine what that difference is,
> if
> there is any difference at all, or if the question is simply meaningless.
> Everything I have read of Butler's (or of Foucault for that matter) seems
> to
> assume that the biological and the sociological are ontologically separate
> and not just separate areas of study.  Yet they never argue for their
> basic
> ontological assumptions they simply assume them.  Thus confusion is
> compounded beyond just the confusion I have in reading their prose.
>
> Again my assumption is that we should admit our lack of knowledge in this
> area.  We don't know one way or another what fundamental differences are
> between the biological and the sociological, if there are any differences
> at
> all, or if how to state these differences.  I think that this is the same
> case with "the mental" and "the physical" and thus you run into the same
> heated arguments.
>
> I have noticed though that on this list, arguments for lack of knowledge
> or
> humility of knowledge often fall flat.  Most intellectuals have a hard
> time
> maintaining this kind of negative capability, which is the value of those
> very few intellectuals who are good poets.
>
> Jerry
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>