Re: Capitalism and Heterosexism: Judith Butler & Nancy Fraser

[malgosia askanas <ma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yoshie wrote:

> There is much uncertainty with regard to the questions (re: the
> relationship between capitalism and heterosexism) I posted, but _not_ as
> much uncertainty as would allow us to say that 'we don't know' and leave it
> at that.

> Besides, there are quite a lot of people--on the left and the right--who
> feel very _certain_ about their answers to the aforementioned questions,
> and since many answers given by them, it seems to me, are obviously
> inadequate and inadequate answers stem from and can in turn lead to
> retrogressive praxis, I don't think it is a good idea for us to leave
> theorizing to them.

See, what you are arguing here, it seems to me, is not the need for theorizing,
but the need for polemicizing -- a type of praxis.  You're saying that
our degree of uncertainty is not such as would _allow_ us to say "we don't
know".  Say to whom?  Obviously not to ourselves, since there is never any
question of saying to oneself that one doesn't know what I knows, except
for the purpose of trying to move on from one's current position.  I guess one
could adapt your argument to apply to that latter purpose, but I suspect that
that would not be in keeping with its intent.  You say "it is not a good idea
to leave theorizing to [those others]".  This reinforces me in my belief that
you are talking about dissemination, polemicizing, intellectual attack --
again, a certain kind of praxis.  This is fine, but I have grave doubts that
it produces new _knowledge_, except possibly a better knowledge of where one
oneself is coming from.  Now this improved understanding of where one is coming
from is, I think, a crucial moment for producing new knowledge, but
I would question whether it is compatible with a truly polemical stance,
which seems to me predicated on the assumption that one has nothing to learn
from the other person, and one's job is to find good arguments to repudiate
hir with.

This, too, is not completely true, because a truly great polemic involves
an intimate understanding of the opponent's position, and thus does engender
some form of knowledge.  One might say that such polemics are a way of
tracing the opponent's position for the purpose of understanding it.
They constitute a method of acquiring knowledge.  But such polemics are rare,
and I think they are different from the practice of "not leaving theorizing
to others".

I guess what I am partly asking is, what is to be learned from, say, the
Fraser/Butler controversy?  What new knowledge can come out of it, and
by means of what methodology?  How do we approach it so that new knowledge
_can_ come out of it, rather than just another re-hearsal of what we already
think we know?


-m