Re: [-empyre-] Matrixial Encounters

[Renee <geuzen@xs4all.nl>]

> This is a bit of a fault-line these days. You have
> your ?post hegelians? (Butler, Bhabba) and your
> ?non hegelians?? (Deleuze, Negri). I?m in the
> latter camp. Which is to say, really not
> interested in ?liminality? or ?the other?. That to
> me is connected to the emerging global ?neo-
> bourgeois? culture which is interested in a
> connective tissue outside of national spaces that
> can make the world safe for a post national
> ruling class. It?s very interested in differences
> so long as those differences don?t really include
> questions of class. It?s very interested in ethics
> (and moral one-upmanship) so long as one
> doesn?t really talk about politics.
McKenzie,

I am not comfortable with the fault-line you 
assert here.  It feels falsely polemic and these 
days, I've grown weary of  unnecessary two choice 
scenarios.  Actually, I think this is what Kate, 
Raul and several others have been bringing up 
again and again with their posts.   While I 
understand such rigid divides might make for 
turbulent discussions (in other words, great 
tabloid), they ultimately don't lead to nuanced 
insights.   Although I am not a theorist or 
writer by trade, I suspect such a divide also 
levels the work of these thinkers to mere slogans 
or sound bites.

Related to the above, can you explain what you 
consider to be truly "political"?

in response to Alan you also wrote:

"The danger in seeing difference everywhere is seeing all
kinds of difference as the same. Some differences are
different to others. Class has its own logic and effectivity.
One has to extract it from liberal list-making anf gestures
of inclusion, i think. To see it as a diagonal that polarises
the social field."

I think the concern about seeing "all kinds of 
difference as the same" is a very legitimate one 
and I greatly appreciate that you raise this 
issue.  Indeed, not all differences are created 
equal, and we need to look sharply and critically 
at how these discrepancies can be articulated or 
laid bare.

But that point accepted,  I cannot help but find 
it cynical and dismissive that you characterize 
measures of inclusion as "gestures".   As a 
faculty member of a Dutch art academy, I 
concretely benefited from measures to include 
women on the staff.  For me, and no doubt others, 
these shifts towards inclusion of other races, 
gender, etc. had and continue to have VERY REAL 
consequences .   Not only in terms of economic 
implications , but also in relation to those 
stories/perspectives/differences which are 
visible and those which are not.  Of course, once 
in these positions we shouldn't sit complacent or 
rest on our laurels.  Instead, we need to remain 
self-critical and continually ask ourselves who 
may be out of sight or whose narratives are being 
suppressed.

Finally, not all acknowledgements of difference 
are in fact about inclusion.  It can also be 
about limits, understanding your own social 
trappings/conventions and therefore keeping in 
check the impulse to master others.


xx Renee
www.geuzen.org