so, kevin and i appear to be continuing our debate...publicly of course because i don't want to make kevin have to root through old entries to hear what i have to say and i don't like commenting, unless it's something small, in my own blog...call me crazy but..
so, here we go:
oh...and here is a p.s. before i even begin.
p.s. kevin...are you mad at me for not being alice? is anyone? sorry i lied a little...
Kevin said...
Wow. Sounds challenging. Lots of writing indeed! Should be really interesting too. I hope you keep us all updated as to what you're reading, etc. my guess: a lot of really dry and dense theory...sweet baby jesus i can't wait!!
What exactly is "open studies"? 'open studies' means i can go to school, take what i want, give them $500/class and not be working towards anything...i think it's actually set for people 'testing the water' or who are just interested in going to school part time...it means i can take whatever i want and am not bound by degree requirements...ie: no mandatory statistics class!! whoo hoo!
So I've been thinking about your comments about feminism and how the success of some women in a sexist system just makes things worse. Have you read anything by Julia Kristeva? i don't know much about Kristeva and she's a lacanian isn't she? if she is- doesn't psychoanalysis run counter to feminism?...but yeah...
The point you bring up is a really important one - in my opinion, one of the fundamental questions of our generation. Which is the right route to a more just society: internal change or external revolution? Punk and Marxism say external; but there are strong arguments the other way too. For example, if one woman out of a thousand can succeed in our society, are we justified in asking her to give up her success for the benefit of the others? American culture says no; everyone must fend for themselves. I don't believe these arguments or buy into the "culture of personal responsibility" that Bush wants me to eat, but I call these arguments strong because they work on millions of people. i don't think that it's about asking people to give up what they have worked for years to achieve. i think it's about recognizing that ONE person's success does not an equal society make...it's about recognizing that the 'culture of personal responsibility' is set up to take the onus off of the collective need to look out for each other..."you can't afford to eat, not my problem...no doctor? well, why don't you just get a better job?" personal responsibility if course important but it cannot exist in lieu of social responsibility...
I'm going off on a tangent here, but I suppose if you mind you can just delete this. NEVER...i am loving this discussion!
I think that this "culture of personal responsibility" and the reduction of state provided services it entails is really just code for a return to feudalism and the breakdown of modern social ethics (what precious little we do have). yep...and i fear we are heading along this path in alberta as well...herr bush and herr ralphie would probably get along great. the amount of cuts that continue to be made in the face of the ridiculous wealth of this province blows my mind
The truth is that the "other" simply doesn't have the political or economic power to be "responsible" for themselves; this is due in large part the forces of sexism, racism, and ethnocentrism in our society. uh huh! By allowing one in a thousand women succeed, we delude ourselves into thinking that those women who do not are simply not working hard enough, or are not "morally fit" to succeed. and this is what i mean when i say that the old rules of feminism...or progressive, egalitarian thinking no longer apply. we've allowed ourselves to be tricked into believing that the "other" is no longer the "other"...
Sick shit. Sick. again i say (and rather inarticulately...) uh huh
Wow, that was depressing. And probably poorly written, but what the hell. I wish I could take some of those classes you're signed up for; maybe then I would actually be able to figure out if I'm full of shit or not. It always seems strange not sign my name at the end of a comment, but it's already at the top. kevin, you rock! this is so rad! and as if this isn't well written! are you full of shit? depends on who your asking...georgie w. would say yes...i say HELLS NO! i may be but that is a discussion for another time!
kevin, this is so rad. i am so glad that all this blogging started something...i think i am going to start posting my thesis in chunks...subsections and probably edit as i go a bit...just to tighten and clean it up! please comment like crazy!
alright kids that's all for now...there will be more because as you can tell i fucking love this thing!
xx michelle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm not mad at all for you not being alice. I think that as readers of your blog, we have the responsibility not to committ the "fallacy of biography", i.e. when reading a text, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the speaker is the same as the author. All you've done at this point is admit that the speaker was lying about its/her/his/ identity :)
For me, these kinds of revelations are the neatest part about the internet and anonymus communication. We never really know what the "truth" is; we can only take what read at face value. Every internet writer projects a speaker; the value in blogging is what we learn from how the speaker we've created interacts with other speakers. The fact that you changed speakers mid-blog just makes things more interesting.
Ok, onto stuff.
Dry and dense theory, huh? And you're excited? You really are an academic at heart. Open studies sounds nice - I don't really believe in the value of a "well-rounded, liberal arts" education anyway; who needs all those required classes? It just serves to alienate people from subjects they're not immediately good at.
Regarding Kristeva: I've only read the essay "Women's Time". Perhaps better than me trying to discuss her work, here is an exerpt from a page about her.
"Although many feminist theorists and literary critics have found Kristeva's ideas useful and provocative, Kristeva's relation to feminism has been ambivalent. Her views of feminism are best represented in her essay "Women's Time" in New Maladies of the Soul. In this essay originally published in 1979, Kristeva argues that there are three phases of feminism. She rejects the first phase because it seeks universal equality and overlooks sexual differences. She implicitly criticizes Simone de Beauvoir and the rejection of motherhood; rather than reject motherhood Kristeva insists that we need a new discourse of maternity. In fact, in "A New Type of Intellectual: The Dissident," Kristeva suggests that "real female innovation (in whatever field) will only come about when maternity, female creation and the link between them are better understood" (298). Kristeva also rejects what she sees as the second phase of feminism because it seeks a uniquely feminine language, which she thinks is impossible. Kristeva does not agree with feminists who maintain that language and culture are essentially patriarchal and must somehow be abandoned. On the contrary, Kristeva insists that culture and language are the domain of speaking beings and women are primarily speaking beings. Kristeva endorses what she identifies as the third phase of feminism which seeks to reconceive of identity and difference and their relationship. This current phase of feminism refuses to choose identity over difference or visa versa; rather, it explores multiple identities, including multiple sexual identities. In an interview with Rosalind Coward, Kristeva proposes that there are as many sexualities as their are individuals. "
In light of that, maybe you can see why I brought her up. She seems to share some of your complaints that "feminism has become a slogan for corporate woman to convince the rest of that the office tower is where we all want to aspire. 'up here, in our power suits, we're all equal...and we can still be feminine and shave our legs...' since when was feminism about NOT being feminine..."
Not surprisingly, I had never heard of Lacanian analysis before you mentioned it. When I get a chance, I'll go through the google results and see if I can form an opinion on whether or not Kristeva is Lacanian.
You wrote, "personal responsibility if course important but it cannot exist in lieu of social responsibility."
That is beautiful.
I'd love to read your thesis. Please post it!
Ok, I think that's enough for now. Oh, wait, one more thing. If you get a chance, you should read "The Rebel Angels" by Roberston Davies. I can't decide whether I "liked" it or not, but it is definitely an interesting book about the practice of feminism in academic society. I'd love to what you have to say about it. But of course, your reading list is already probably about a mile long...
Post a Comment