Just as many theorists could be cited who explain in detail the
social, historical, political and personal damage done by
essentializing the other. Edward Said, Homi
Bhabha and Salmon Rushdie for example speak for colonized cultures in
that respect, while Judith Butler and others approach essentializing
from feminist points of view. Anti-Semitism essentializes the Jew, and
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Diana Manister wrote:
>> Dear Ken,
>> Either/or, like all binaries, depend on totalizing each element.
>> Female, for instance. Derrida among others points out that
>> essentializing distorts.
> Essentializing sex distorts. See Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender
> from the Greeks to Freud_. It makes more sense to see _one_ sex, many
> genders. But this cannot be generalized int "essentializing distorts."
> Essentializing species is necessary to understand evolution. See
> Jay Gould, _The Structure of Evolutoinary Theory_. I would agree
> that no
> society, including any particular capitalist society, is a totality.
> capitalism, unlike all other social systems, is a complex of
> _tendencies_ which,if realized, would constitute a totality. Hence (as
> in Hegel's The truth is the whole) capitalism can be understood
> historically, as history, and thus dialectically. Hence it has an
> essence, though one never realized in any specific capitalist regime.
> See Moishe Postone, _Time, Labor and Social Domination_.
> Male and female are more alike than not.
>> Derrida replaced duality with differance, which means more than the
>> Anglo word difference.
> Cite a specific text for this. I myself, never got a grip on what he
> meant by this, but I do know that popular use of it is often half-
> A dead possu and a live rhino are pretty different, no playing with
> letters needed.
>> Post-Kantian philosophies are not dualistic. Except for Sartre who
>> didn't get it.
> I give up. Where in the hell do you get all this canned fluff.
>> It seems clearer to use differance rather than a binary to express
>> multiple choices you describe.
>> Sent from my iPod
>> On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Nancy Gish wrote:
>>>> Neither works if you try to follow it to any logical conclusion.
>>>> But then, as I said, I discuss this in the article on
>>>> "Subjectivities," which focuses on how Anglo-American and French
>>>> theories are set down on a template like Scottish poetry where they
>>>> just do not explain anything--one of them being these notions of
>>>> discourse as either totally originated by the lyric voice or
>>>> totally constructed by language. I never feel constrained by
>>>> "either/or"; it is pretty much always a false dichotomy.
>>> I had a friend who insisted that the meaning of either/or (in
>>> Kierkegaard no less) was "take your pick" or "six of one, half a
>>> dozen of the other"! False choices are false choices, between which
>>> one is not constrained to choose. But without arriving, somewhat
>>> regularly, at true either/or's, what progress does thought make?
>>> Ken A