> >Where oh where was there a
> >dichotomy expressed anywhere in my note?
>
> Er, here " so long as we end up insisting on either the basic primacy of
> the essence of our concern relative to others' or on the secondary
> superstructuralism of the false essences of others" your essentialist
> position, counterposed to "we're not able to do any
> good work." your anti-essentialist position.
>
This is not MY dichotomy, I've been arguing against this... the sentence is about how the folks I disagree with argue. Your focus on it represents the kind of willful misreading that makes this conversation uninteresting, repetitive and stupid.
> > Do you know the empirically
> >substantive resesasrch and literature on anti-essentialism?
> I know a lot of it, probably not near all. But this misses the point, and
> it relates to what Carrol just posted, the onus is on you to present me
> with
> the argument and convince me. I don't think it is my responsibility to go
> out and read the exact things you have in order for us to come to exactly
> the same understanding. If you can not convince me through a logical
> argument then guess what, you haven't convinced me (this is also related to
> your claim that I misread your note. Which seems to happen to you alot ,
> huh?). Claiming some Superior reference list hardly makes your point. It
> seems rather to undermine it.
>
I have no idea what your position is beyond your misreading of what I say... when you misread what I say each time, how am I supposed to convince you of anything? Its not a claim to a superior reference list - it seems you really don't like academics - its a question of whether or not you know what you're talking about when you misread my sentences on anti-essentialism.
>
> On the broader question of essentialism, maybe you can explain to me how
> this works in practice. I think this is Reed's point about historicizing
> the struggles. An abstract academic understanding can surely be based on
> an
> unessentialized politics, but can actual practice? Do you consider the
> civil rights movement actions to be based in an essentialist politics?
>
No, ridiculous question. My whole point was to argue that, historically, the problem with the anti-racists (and the return-to-classists, of whom Reed is not one), is that the historical dynamics of the racialization process Shag introduced a few weeks back have changed and the essentialism of the anti-racists and return-to-classists can't work, even strategically. Nevertheless, the point I argued long ago was that it is possible - and Michaels does this - to paint with so broad a brush as to conflate aware, sophisticated and/or synthetic actors who - given existing political conditions - strategically speak the language of anti-racism with the essentialists who live it. The key to the conflation is never to speak to folks across the range of people workin with this discourse.
>
> >Have you a
> >sense how folks who've been through don't have these ridiculous exchanges
> >because they're stance is fundamentally beyond the ideas and politics of
> the
> >discreteness much less the dichotomous nature of any of these concerns?
>
> Maybe this would answer my questions above, I don't know because it makes
> no
> sense. What do you mean by 'folks who've been through'? What do you mean
> by 'ridiculous exchanges'? Which concerns, and the discreteness and
> dichotomous nature of them, are 'these folks' 'fundamentally beyond'? Maybe
> you can write it again?
>
I'll be specific. I mean by folks who've been through this the socialist feminists who long ago stopped arguing about singular or composite standpoints and started working on projects that necessitated negotiating situated knowledges rather than pre-established stances. It works quite well in practice but means treating folks with respect (assuming they treat you that way) and actually trying to listen/hear what they're saying.
This is a ridiculous exchange.
The socialist feminists I know are all fundamentally beyond these kinds of push me pull you debates about prioritizing or operating with set political categories... they found that, in both theory and practice, its a loser of a proposition. They hold no truck with the "anti-racists" Reed's and Henwood have had more than enough, as they do with anyone who wants to start with a general category instead of a specific problem.
>
> >My stance is, admittedly, a
> >metacritique and its the metacritique that offers the way out of this
> >stupid, repetitive and increasingly uninteresting conversation.
>
> Please enlighten us all as to the way out of our stupidity and
> uninterestingness with _the_ metacritique, as you say you have. Or, are
> you
> better at just mentioning that you alone have the answer then you are at
> explaining it so people can understand?
>
> Again, thanks for misreading my point. I didn't claim to have _the_
metacritique and I didn't claim to have the answer. I said that I had _a_
metacritique and - refering to it - I said that it offered a way out of this
stupid, repetitive and uninteresting conversation. Lots of really bright
and wonderful people engage in various sides of stupid conversations...
every union drive I've been part of, every environmental action I've been
part of, and every relationship I've been in has had its share, some way
more than others. (You might note that I never called Michaels stupid...
but I do believe that the conversation I contributed to the start of proved
largely a stupid waste... no matter how many arguments, direct textual
notes, or interpretations critics made, the criticisms were again and again
and again brushed off without substantive rejoinder... )
Everybody pretty much agrees that the anti-racists Doug just pointed directly to are getting in the way and diverting energies... these are not the sum total of all anti-racist actions and perhaps the majority of my questions have come from wondering how to actually deal with the complexity of the issue - historically and today - given that fact. Can't we simply stipulate to the irritating, disabling and neoliberalizing actions of the multicultural and essentialist anti-racists - even if we don't agree on who makes this argument best - and talk about how we deal with today's racisms, sexisms, heterosexisms, nationalisms, and classisms - yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, bad terms - that might actually be interesting.