On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ravi wrote:
>
>> BTW, let me take this opportunity to reiterate that Doug's use of
>> the word "exoticize" is best applied reflectively. It assumes such
>> a universality of his viewpoint that suggesting others might have a
>> different one is an act of exoticising them. So, if my brown "third
>> world" woman mother has certain preferences, say when it comes to
>> bathing attire, that do not gel with what the West prefers, then
>> she is exoticising herself. There is even a term for this I think:
>> "master narrative". Perhaps she exoticises herself by buying into
>> the master narrative that she is inferior.
>
> This is twisted beyond all recognition. If people don't want to wear
> bikinis, it's their own damn business. If they want to wear burkas,
> ditto. I prefer bikinis to burkas, but that's me. What annoys me no
> end is the assumption that many Iranians don't want to wear bikinis,
> or short of that, wouldn't like to be free of scarves etc. when
> walking in public, and that those desires to be free of enforced
> modesty are somehow elitist or frivolous.
I can't speak for Chris, Michael S or Ken, but that's not how I read the opposing argument. Rather, the point is that it is entirely possible that many Iranians do not want to wear bikinis (they do not perceive it *merely* as enforced modesty). Their framework might find it non-blocking that enforcement of certain behaviours is a necessary part of human existence, and they might have a nuanced view (just as we all do) of what criteria to use to judge if such enforcement is just. So, we may say: that's sexist and denies women some freedoms. They might respond: "it's sexist only if we discriminate exclusively against women. In fact, we also frown upon men in Speedos". If you are a Libertarian (big L), then perhaps you can continue the argument, for liberties stand above all for you. But if you are not, and you do find a tension between individual liberty and common good, then you have to examine these arguments, yes?
You write that what annoys you is the "assumption that many Iranians don't want to weak bikinis". I make no such assumption. That in fact is the point. I am in no position to make assumptions (worse, I am in the least capable position). What is strange is that rather than seeking to understand rather than assume, we have digressed into issues of motivation, exoticising, etc.
> To assume that many Iranians don't want "Western" pleasures is
> what's exoticizing.
But that's not what is being assumed, so when you say "exoticising" you are not talking of assumptions at all. The real question is (and remains) "what do Iranians [not necessarily collectively] want?" and unless someone can speak authoritatively to to it, what you are saying comes down to an accusation that to consider the possibility that they may not want what Westerners want is to exoticise them.
I am not ignorant of where you are coming from. I know you are not some Western chauvinist who thinks that some innate greatness of the White Man led to whatever benefits and pleasures he enjoys and the rest of the world should mimic Him. A varied set of [at times unpredictable and uncontrollable] causes lead to all sorts of outcomes and if the Western world has certain outcomes that seem to lead to a better/freer/productive/fulfilling life in some ways, then why can it not be replicated elsewhere? In fact, I am even of the view (already stated) that some universalised framework can indeed be derived (if we work patiently at it).
The problem I see is that you see any difference, even in detail, from this view, as the equivalent of opposing an already arrived at universal set of rules. You seem to say that the opponent is therefore denying some freedoms or rights or choices to a group, and that the reason for this is that the opponent thinks that group is exotic. Zizek, in the passage quoted by Dennis, makes the same argument.
But that is not merely wrong but unfair (it is the same sort of "preemptive strike" that I could indulge in -- and that a lot of reactionary/conservative leaders within these groups already do -- by saying that you want to impose your views and behaviour on us). It is wrong because of the question begging. We don't know (or at least have not yet stated) what the framework is, what the universal axioms are, and how certain freedoms are derived from these. It is unfair because it dismisses an opposing viewpoint not via logic but using a sophisticated form of name-calling.
Finally, it fails, because (as in the case of one of the respondents to Michael S, who tried by calling Michael's view a typical "first world" white male view) it cannot be applied to all opponents. I am not a first world white male. Now, of course, the trick can be modified. After all I am a male and I can be accused of "exoticising" women, worse "third world" women. So I asked a third world brown woman. If she disagree as well, then the criticism has once again to be retooled. Perhaps she is part of the bourgeoisie. etc. But what all of this demonstrates is the weakness of this approach. As Chris Doss said at the lunch the other day (and I am paraphrasing), the real argument is there in front of us and at some point we have to address it.
On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:44 PM, wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
> I think you're shifting the terms of the discussion a bit, and
> your
> analogy implicitly engages in reification, through making the
> analogy between a single individual and millions of people. To use
> your analogy properly, the real problem would be if your mother's
> preferences were allowed to stand in for the billions of 'third
> world' women throughout the world (although the act of negation is
> also very problematic.)
>
But that's the point of the analogy! It's not to show that "the plural of anecdote is data" (it’s a mere counterfactual, interpreted in that sense). Rather, it is to show that this meta-psychoanalytical talk of "exoticising" is fruitless and misguided (see last paragraph above).
--ravi