From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Wed Sep 3 10:40:45 1997 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:40:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: About Matfem Dear Matfem members, Matfem has been growing a great deal; we started in May, 1995 and quickly reached a membership of about 300 which remained stationary for a long time. Today I found out Matfem has over 400 members, thus indicating its appeal to feminists here in the U.S. as well as in Canada and the UK. Nevertheless, Matfem has grown progressively quiet; its archives show 342 messages for 1995; 44 in 1996 and so far 80 in 1997. I have been wondering about the reasons why so little happens in Matfem. Is it because we are too busy? Is it because we do not want to share our ideas before we publish them? Is it because the publish or perish pressures keep us from interacting with our virtual peers? Is it because we have reached such consensus about what's what in feminist theory that we are left with little to talk about? Nancy Brumback, for example, sent some very interesting questions which we could still pursue. And Ann Ferguson's intervention elicited only Nancy's acknowledgement, nothing else. Is it because we all agree with the views she expressed? Are there any different view points? There are over 400 of us and, I imagine, most of us are working on something at this time. Do you have working papers you would like to share to obtain feed back from those of us knowledgeable about your topic? Do you have unpublished or published papers you would like to place in the archives? I could create a directory for your work and all you need, for your published materials, is copyright clearance from your publishers, something very easy to get. To refresh your memory about what Matfem is all about, you can send a message to LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu and in the message proper simply write two words info matfem To get information about other commands you can use to explore CSF and to deal with your mail, send mail to LISTPROC and in the message proper write help To find Matfem's archives, the URL is http://csf.colorado.edu/matfem Looking forward to hearing from many of you soon! In solidarity, Martha ********************************************** Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology Campus Box 327 University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, Colorado 80309 Voice: 303-492-7080 Fax: 303-492-5105 From gyokota@lisa.lang.osaka-u.ac.jp Thu Sep 4 19:10:05 1997 Subject: Martha's Query To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu (matfem) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:08:29 +0900 (JST) From: "Gerry Yokota-Murakami" To respond to Martha's query about possible reasons for the quiet on matfem, just a few thoughts. In my particular case, it's not pressure to publish, though I'm no doubt in the minority here -- Japanese universities offer permanent employment from the time of hiring, there's no need to fight for tenure. Some of it is consensus, either that I agree with what's said or I feel I don't know enough to disagree! I would venture the hypothesis that in general the e-mail bulletin board format encourages passivity (especially in women who are already conditioned that way?). I for one certainly log on more to receive than to give, I'm scrounging, scavenging for ideas, inspiration -- though I promise to give credit for them and not just steal them and then claim they were my own! In my case it is also perhaps an unconscious demonstration of my conditioning to demonstrate to the feminine virtue of modesty and sense of shame, as I so fear that my naive ideas will be laughed at. In my case it's also my ambivalence about my very discipline, literature. I try to argue that it's an important institutional force to be reckoned with because of its place in the educational system and especially the power of canonical literature to influence the formation of ideology, but I still get trapped in liberal guilt about pursuing a leisurely ivory-tower pastime. For what it's worth.... Despite all my talk about fears of ridicule, I really do welcome critique now that I've finally gotten up the courage to express my fears. If I get really brave maybe I could just put the 4-page preface to my book, The Formation of the Canon of No: The Literary Tradition of Divine Authority (Osaka Univ. Press, 1997) in the matfem archive. Gerry -- Gerry Yokota-Murakami Faculty of Language and Culture Osaka University 1-8 Machikaneyama Toyonaka, Japan 560 gyokota@lisa.lang.osaka-u.ac.jp From fourie@german.unp.ac.za Fri Sep 5 01:58:35 1997 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:54:17 +0200 From: Regine Fourie To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Martha's Query -Reply Dear Gerry, I share your thoughts and concerns, especially the ones about literature teaching, and would love to read the preface to your book. So I hope that you *will* be brave and post it in the achives! Regards, Regine Department of German University of Natal Pietermaritzburg South Africa. >>> "Gerry Yokota-Murakami" 5/9/97, 03:08am >>> To respond to Martha's query about possible reasons for the quiet on matfem, just a few thoughts. In my particular case, it's not pressure to publish, though I'm no doubt in the minority here -- Japanese universities offer permanent employment from the time of hiring, there's no need to fight for tenure. Some of it is consensus, either that I agree with what's said or I feel I don't know enough to disagree! I would venture the hypothesis that in general the e-mail bulletin board format encourages passivity (especially in women who are already conditioned that way?). I for one certainly log on more to receive than to give, I'm scrounging, scavenging for ideas, inspiration -- though I promise to give credit for them and not just steal them and then claim they were my own! In my case it is also perhaps an unconscious demonstration of my conditioning to demonstrate to the feminine virtue of modesty and sense of shame, as I so fear that my naive ideas will be laughed at. In my case it's also my ambivalence about my very discipline, literature. I try to argue that it's an important institutional force to be reckoned with because of its place in the educational system and especially the power of canonical literature to influence the formation of ideology, but I still get trapped in liberal guilt about pursuing a leisurely ivory-tower pastime. For what it's worth.... Despite all my talk about fears of ridicule, I really do welcome critique now that I've finally gotten up the courage to express my fears. If I get really brave maybe I could just put the 4-page preface to my book, The Formation of the Canon of No: The Literary Tradition of Divine Authority (Osaka Univ. Press, 1997) in the matfem archive. Gerry -- Gerry Yokota-Murakami Faculty of Language and Culture Osaka University 1-8 Machikaneyama Toyonaka, Japan 560 gyokota@lisa.lang.osaka-u.ac.jp From althausm@div.ed.ac.uk Fri Sep 5 03:54:29 1997 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:54:21 +0100 (BST) From: "Marcella Althaus-Reid x8914" To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:52:13 +000 Subject: Re: Martha's Query -Reply In-reply-to: Dear friends. I try to send messages before and they all came back to me, so I'm just testing. Marcella **************************************** Dr Marcella Maria Althaus-Reid Theology, Culture and Development New College, The University of Edinburgh Mound Place EH1 2LX FAX: +44 131 650 6579 "Seek Simplicity and Distrust it" From lennox@german.umass.edu Fri Sep 5 11:03:36 1997 Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 13:03:09 -0400 From: lennox@german.umass.edu (Sara Lennox) Subject: Questions about MatFem To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Well, I imagine that we will have quite a lot to talk about once Materialist Feminism: A Reader is available in the book stores. But meanwhile I have some questions that might provoke some discussion and help me and my students gain a clearer understanding of materialist feminism as a method. Right now I am teaching a graduate course in feminist literary theory and methodology. In the last four weeks of the course, students, broken down into work groups, are to consider the methods of feminist cultural studies, postcolonial theory, queer theory, and materialist feminism and apply them to a literary text in a class presentation. So: thanks to Rosemary Hennessy's review in Signs (which we are reading in the course) we know how materialist feminism differs from queer theory. But: how is materialist feminism different from cultural studies or postcolonial theory--or IS it? (Rightly or wrongly, I used Hennessy/Mohan's "The Construction of Women in Three Popular Texts of Empire: Towards a Critique of Materialist Feminism" as an example of post-colonial theory last time I taught a theory course, and that essay is also reprinted in Williams/Chrisman, Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory.) As well, I'd like to know how materialist feminism is and isn't different from postmodern Marxism of the sort manifested in the journal Rethinking Marxism. I wonder if we could also discuss how materialist feminism as a method of literary/cultural analysis has changed since the publication of Newton/Rosenvelt's Feminist Criticism and Social Change in 1985. And finally, In Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse, Hennessy describes the method of materialist feminist cultural analysis as ideology critique. Would materialist feminism also want to investigate ways of looking at texts and other cultural products beyond ideology critique: for instance, emphasizing their contradictions, their possibly subversive elements, their polysemy and possibility of meaning different things to different audiences? I look forward to your ideas and responses! Yours, Sara Lennox From mreeves@chass.utoronto.ca Sat Sep 6 05:14:51 1997 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 17:04:56 -0400 From: Margaret Reeves To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Questions about MatFem References: In response to the recent postings, I want to echo Gerry's sentiments about why some of us list members are so quiet, although we are still very interested. I'm still working on my degree (and raising a family), so like those of you teaching, I find little extra time for the luxury of discussing ideas. Also, the challenge of posting to this list is the challenge of coming to terms with and understanding theory, and not just theory, but a sophisticated and complex theory that draws on two seemingly antithetical notions: Materialism (from Marxism, presumably) and theories of discourse (from poststructuralism). I guess some our fears are simply that we could be so publicly wrong about something! Well, maybe so, but I did want to reveal my ignorance anyway on one point (since you so kindly ask why we're not speaking) and say that I am surprised to see the words postmodern and Marxism joined together in Sara Lennox's posting. I have so far only seen Marxist takes on postmodernism and postmodern theory that situate these two political/theoretical positons in opposition to each other, as in the works of Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton. One text that I have read which expresses downright hostility to postmodern and poststructuralist theory is Brian Palmer's _Descent into Discourse: The Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History_, in which Palmer defines as a fundamental opposition "discourse versus materialism" (on page xv). I would be interested to hear what others on the list think of such opposition to postmodern theory from Marxists, and where materialist/feminists are situated in relation to this problem? I think that one of the reasons that a materialist/feminist perspective is so appealing for me (at least, as it is defined in Hennessey's first chapter) is the way in which it offers a way for me to bring three of the main theoretical positions which interest me together, these being a materialist understanding of power, a feminist perspective that qualifies and complexifies this understanding, and a concern with the role that language plays in the construction and operation of power and power relations. I guess what I would like to learn is how to integrate the concerns raised by African American and African Canadian feminist critics and postcolonial theorists. Can one theory do it all? Am I already expecting too much of mat/fem theory? Thanks for listening. Margaret Reeves From lennox@german.umass.edu Sat Sep 6 21:37:48 1997 MatFem@csf.colorado.edu; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 23:37:24 -0400 From: lennox@german.umass.edu (Sara Lennox) Subject: Postmodern Marxism To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu To respond to Margaret Reeves' question about postmodern marxism, I asked a friend, former student, and member of the editorial board of Rethinking Marxism, S. Charusheela ("Charu") of the Economics Dept. of Franklin and Marshall College, to write a brief paragraph defining what she and others mean by it. Well, she didn't think it possible to do that in a paragraph, but here's part of her answer, and it also seems to speak to the question Margaret raised about postcolonial concerns. (If this is too much for your inbox, please push the delete key)--Sara Lennox And finally, one point about what I find interesting about pomo as a marxist: I think pomo is not for or against anything per se, anymore than say the conception of base-superstructure was intrinsically for or against totalitarian Stalinism. It is a word whose provenance I find hard to grasp, I use it because I am not fond of hair-splitting and if it folks use it, then okay, so do I. But the 'power of the word' is pretty stark, I think, when we consider that word 'pomo.' It is ill-defined, it spans a whole host of authors, it is sometimes used to describe a peculiar 'French Tic,' sometimes used to describe post-colonial studies, sometimes used for American post-structuralist feminism, sometimes used to demarcate any identity-based social constructivism, and every so often to demarcate a notion of pastiche as a particular historical moment around how we think. Too much and yet too little on which to hang a discussion, and yet we find various academics *passionately* for or against it in some absolutist sense. I think what worries folks the most is the loss of the ethical high ground: if pomo stopped at discussing how identity is socially formed by material forces (material interpreted so broadly as to leave nothing out of its provenance, very often, since it turns out culture is material, power is material, technology is material, economy is material, polity is material, so it is hard to know what precisely the 'material' is *distinguished* from), folks would be fine. Pomo however takes up more than identity, it takes up meaning, and hence ethics. this makes folks fear the 'relativist' edge of pomo, and it is this they are against, if I am right. Now this for me is most curious and revealing, for two reasons: a) It indicates to me an anxiety that what we see as enlightenment ethics -- equality and freedom and individual rights -- will be lost. I am hard pressed to imagine anybody arguing that history is reversible in or out of pomo, so this fear makes little sense to me, quite honestly (unless one somehow thinks words once spoken can be unspoken, or history can be reversed). Once done, we have these words -- what one is thinking about is how to attain the promises made: I mean, critics of the enlightenment would not be so *critical* of the enlightenment if they did not *care* about attaining its unkept promises. b) And another, rather unpleasant aspect of the debate: I am writing a paper on this, btw: the whole 'ethnocentrism versus relativism,' loss of ethical center etc. debate seems to be a rather false one, acting like the 'two poles of dialectically interlocking sentences' similar to that described by Spivak. What *does* it mean to say 'relativism' vis-a-vis a culture? That assumes the culture is synchronically frozen, non-contradictory, incapable of change, and has *no* language, debate, discourse, challenge, from which ethical stances can come (dare I say 'Asiatic mode and oriental despots'). Now I know of no ethnography of any cultural history anywhere that can substantiate this claim of frozen and ahistorical folks sans any ethical language. Instead, *all* cultures have a language around the cultures of resistance and cultures of consent. Basically, we tend to think that yes, those folks have norms of community, but it is so wrapped up in norms of oppressive heirarchy, that there is no capacity for 'detachment,' no space at all for us to think of community here without upholding horrible horrible oppressions. Now, I have no desire to romanticize these cultures --oppressive many were and remain. BUT, my question is this: what makes the *enlightenment* alone somehow *uniquely* capable of having its ethics detached from social inheritances on the ethical front? We gotta have a level playing field: either this culture, like all others, is incapable of articulating an ethics free of its history of oppression, or else all cultures have some space given their contradictions etc. If we go the 'all cultures have such a possibility' route, then we need to consider, for practical politics if nothing else, figuring out a way to articulate this so that folks can join up and feel committed. If we go the 'no cultures' route, then we are a little stuck, since now there goes the enlightenment, and then what do we do? Methinks that our absolute conviction that there is one, and only one, unique cultural inheritance which is capable of ethics, is what lies behind this anxiety around pomo. Let's start by naming a culture which we believe to be so bankrupt first, and substantiating why and how it is utterly incapable of ethics, then we can bash pomo as relativist etc. Till then, I think that there is pots of relativist wishy-washy pomo, and pots of chest-banging rescuing heroes come to hold firm the fortress of ethics against nihilists etc.: BOTH by my lights are part and parcel of the same problem: folks from one cultural space finding it almost impossible to figure out some center for ethics and constantly worry about ME, ME, ME, what do *I* do, etc., when the world does not revolve around them anymore (or shows the possibility of not doing so even as an idea). So much anxiety about losing one's unique role as the rescuer of the downtrodden and singular bearer of revolutionary truth! For all the stuff about center-margin, methinks this is still about the center and its imagined margin, and not that much about actual folks who live in the margins of the margin. PS: when I think of the possibilities of post-structural politics etc. I am far more interested in what these insights can do to help foment grass roots activism around the languages and problems of the decolonized etc., a lot of what folks end up worrying about in discussions here seems to be much more about hiccups in english literature departments which have suddenly discovered that, *gasp,* as with the Irish in the 1920s and 30s, there are actually *brown* folks who write in English and produce fiction in that language, and what do we do? This is a rather different problem -- not mine, I will happily say -- than what I tend to think of as a possibly sharp critical edge which can come from looking at language and identity. For eg., I am currently thinking and writing about the role of the feudal ethical norms around reciprocity and community within the communist imaginary: tending to view the various discursive oppositions as around that very odd thing, the contradiction and dialectic between the ethics of reciprocity, caring and community, and those of individual autonomy, communism envisaging a possible way of organizing social life which can resolve some aspects of that cross-sutting contradiction. Seems to me that in ethical terms, not coming to grips with the ethics of non-enlightenment discourses around this question may leave us impoverished when it comes to communal imaginings, and I think the feminist questions around children etc, form an important part of the same types of issues. Apart from being things we gotta work out in lived grassroots politics around how folks conceive of themselves etc. in concrete terms for making this possible. So I guess the point here is that like any other Marxism, postmodern marxism will gain its critical edge depending on whom you make the center of your analysis and whose works, identities, cultures and languages you work through and try to decipher and change. Now, how to put all this in *one* para.?! ******************************************************************* * * * * S. Charusheela * PH: (O) (717)-291-3936 * * Economics Dept. * (H) (717) 390-8906 * * Franklin & Marshall College * FAX: (717) 291-4369 * * Lancaster PA 17604 * email: S_CHARU@ACAD.FANDM.EDU * * * * ******************************************************************* From lennox@german.umass.edu Sun Sep 7 12:39:04 1997 MatFem@csf.colorado.edu; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 14:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:38:41 -0400 From: lennox@german.umass.edu (Sara Lennox) Subject: Postmodern Marxism II To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu I want to apologize to MatFem and to Charu for not realizing that the message I forwarded to you last night was a private post intended for me, not for the list. Below is a post from Charu written for you all. I'd like to pass on my regards to the Mat-Fem group whose work I've found very useful, and clarify that (1) the material Sara passed on was written in the context of a long-running conversation and was not drafted with the kind of care and nuance that I would try to use for a public post, being various musings on issues I've thought about for a while in various contexts, so do read it in that context. (2) the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the _Rethinking Marxism_ editorial board (which is so diverse that I would hesitate to ever undertake any such representation), and (3) since I wrote that message late saturday night after a beer as a private post, I failed to give credit where due: i) I should clarify that my diverse ideas on the differences between what often becomes part of various debates around margins, and the problems of folks living in these margins, is heavily indebted to a friend (who I do not have permission to name, since these were private exchanges) -- he works in the context of S. Asia, and like many on matfem [though perhaps for different reasons, like those mentioned in the post], he is ambivalnet about a lot of the trends within postmodern scholarship -- he finds the intellectual traditions useful and he is sympathetic, but he argues, convincingly, I think, that for the promise to bear fruit, we need to think about who is writing about what and why etc. I should also thank Radhika Gajjala and folks on Sawnet who are interested in such issues, since exchanging ideas with them has given me much food for thought on these issues. ii) The specific project on feudal subjectivity and ethics comes out of a long discussion about this with various folks, and the papers here are being done by me and SERAP KAYATEKIN at the University of Leeds (lest anybody mistakenly give me singular credit for all this). Any blame for gaps, etc. of course, remains my own and cannot be attributed to these folks! yours, Charu. ******************************************************************* * * * * S. Charusheela * PH: (O) (717)-291-3936 * * Economics Dept. * (H) (717) 390-8906 * * Franklin & Marshall College * FAX: (717) 291-4369 * * Lancaster PA 17604 * email: S_CHARU@ACAD.FANDM.EDU * * * * ******************************************************************* From brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Sun Sep 7 16:54:32 1997 From: brumback@ncgate.newcollege.edu Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:01:34 -0700 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: About Matfem > >>I have been wondering about the reasons why so little happens in Matfem. >>Is it because we are too busy? Is it because we do not want to share our >>ideas before we publish them? Is it because the publish or perish >>pressures keep us from interacting with our virtual peers? Is it because >>we have reached such consensus about what's what in feminist theory that >>we are left with little to talk about? Nancy Brumback, for example, sent >>some very interesting questions which we could still pursue. And Ann >>Ferguson's intervention elicited only Nancy's acknowledgement, nothing >>else. Is it because we all agree with the views she expressed? Are >>there any different view points? >> Thanks to Martha for the nudge about the matfem discussion on Marx, women, value, and nature. I especially appreciated your last comments, Martha, about domestic labor, etc. I am going to compose a response soon. I have been too busy before now, but just wanted to get out this quick THANKS! From howie@magi.com Mon Sep 8 10:46:48 1997 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:53:44 -0400 (EDT) To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu From: Howie Chodos Subject: Re: Postmodern Marxism Charu's inadvertent post to the list raised some issues that I think are extremely important. I hope, then, she won't mind my taking her comments as the starting point for my first post to this list. There is much with which I agree, but there are also some points with which I find myself in tension. Cognizant of the fact that Charu's original post was written for personal rather than public communication, I will try to stick to the 'big' issues. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but these are important matters. I agree with Charu both that there is a benign side to pomo, and that there are many pomos. I also think that she is right that what concerns many people about much pomo is its tendency toward relativism. Here, though (largely following Roy Bhaskar), I think that there is a useful distinction to be made between two kinds of relativism, one that I find unobjectionable and one that I think does have negative consequences. The relativism that we need to recognize is at the level of epistemology. Our knowledge of the world is necessarily historically, cultutrally, individually, circumscribed and therefore relative. The one that causes me problems is at the level of judgment. I do not think that it makes sense to endorse the idea that all theories about how we should conduct ourselves in the world are of equal value, or that there are no (historically specific) criteria according to which we can prefer one approach (say, liberalism) to another (say, Nazism). When I say this I do not mean that these judgmental criteria are timelessly universal, existing for all time and just waiting to be discovered as we pursue our progressive quest towards ever-greater enlightenment. Nonetheless, I think we can affirm that over time we have worked out certain sets of values that foster universal goods such as individual freedom and greater equality, and that these values can be defended in these terms. This does not mean, of course, that anyone has the right to impose their values, no matter how 'enlightened' on anyone else. But it is significant to note that this latter affirmation is itself a value that we have come to endorse over time. Judgmental relativism is a problem largely at the level of philosophy. It seems to me that people who react to it very strongly tend to see what they perceive to be the political implications of judgmental relativism. I would argue against them that there is no necessary correspondence between philosophy and politics. Different philosophical stances can support the same political positions (think, perhaps, of Marxists and liberation theologists fighting the same oppressive regime) while diverging political conclusions can be reached by people who share the same philosophical outlook (think, perhaps, of Marxists who have, over the years, vilified other Marxists for being traitors to the common cause). Moreover, in the case of judgmental relativism I think that it is impossible to be consistently relativist in practice. We must make practical judgments about what to do in the world that necessarily collapse the relativist frame of reference. When we have decided that one course of action is better than another (for whatever reasons) we have transcended relativism. In this sense, our theoretical representations concerning what we think we are doing are different from what we actually do in practice. We can think that we are enacting a completely relativist approach, but our practice in the world (verified by our continuing survival in that world), belies our theory. We can mislead ourselves about what we are doing in the world while simultaneously behaving in that world in ways that allow us to survive and even prosper. At the same time, though, I got the feeling that Charu was understating the philosophical importance of this debate. To repeat, I argued that there is no necessary substantive political consequence to the various positions in the debate. But nonetheless, I do think that there is a debilitating political effect to judgmental relativism. We need to acknowledge the *possibility* of being able to choose rationally amongst different alternative ways of organizing society if we are to engage in grassroots activism of any kind. A strong commitment to judgmental relativism undermines this very possibility. This does not (and cannot) mean that the rejection of judgmental relativism means gives to any one group or individual any kind of privileged access to what that better course of action may be. But I do think we need a commitment to striving in common to find it, and that this commitment presuppposes a rejection of judgmental relativism at the philosophical level. In this regard I found Charu's comments on pre-capitalist ethics to be fascinating. The idea that we need to draw on such ethical traditions in working out a possible communist imaginary seems to me to be sound. I think she is also right to see the stakes as being to envisage "a possible way of organizing social life which can resolve some aspects of [the] cross-cutting contradiction" between individual autonomy and community. It seems to me, however, that a project such as this necessarily enters into tension with those aspects of postmodernism which sustain judgmental relativism. There are many different ways to try to "resolve" these contradictions, and to argue for one over another implies that we can work out some (historically specific) criteria which enable us to say that, for example, an emancipatory social project is superior to an oppressive one. Howie Chodos. Ottawa, Canada. From iwgordon@iconz.co.nz Mon Sep 8 19:42:24 1997 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:42:13 +1200 To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu, MATERIALIST FEMINISM From: Helen Marsh Subject: Re: About Matfem At 10:40 03/09/97 -0600, Martha Gimenez wrote: >Dear Matfem members, > snip > >I have been wondering about the reasons why so little happens in Matfem. >Is it because we are too busy? Partly - but also I stay on Matfem because it does not swamp me with more mail than I can cope with. >Is it because we do not want to share our >ideas before we publish them? Is it because the publish or perish >pressures keep us from interacting with our virtual peers? No, not that. I am not publishing except informally on the web. I am not sure whether I fit into "Materialist Feminism". I would like to find a strand of feminism I feel comfortable in. I am lurking and listening to see whether this could be it. >Is it because >we have reached such consensus about what's what in feminist theory that >we are left with little to talk about? Nancy Brumback, for example, sent >some very interesting questions which we could still pursue. And Ann >Ferguson's intervention elicited only Nancy's acknowledgement, nothing >else. Is it because we all agree with the views she expressed? Are >there any different view points? > Some of the language is unfamiiar to me. I don't want to waste people's time until I understand what they are talking about and get a feel for whether I am close enough to the same philosophy for discussion to be fruitful. >There are over 400 of us and, I imagine, most of us are working on >something at this time. Do you have working papers you would like to >share to obtain feed back from those of us knowledgeable about your topic? >Do you have unpublished or published papers you would like to place in the >archives? I could create a directory for your work and all you need, for >your published materials, is copyright clearance from your publishers, >something very easy to get. > I am outside the establishment. I don't have published material but I have some strong convictions that I certainly would like to share and obtain feed-back on. I am just not sure whether this is the place to find people "knowledgeable about my topic". >To refresh your memory about what Matfem is all about, you can send a >message to LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu >and in the message proper simply write two words > >info matfem > > >To get information about other commands you can use to explore CSF and to >deal with your mail, send mail to LISTPROC and in the message proper write > >help > >To find Matfem's archives, the URL is > >http://csf.colorado.edu/matfem Thanks for this. This kind of technical information about how to make the best use of the internet does seem to need constant recirculating. Helen Marsh, B.Soc Sc, Dip Econ(Waik) iwgordon@iconz.co.nz: +64 9 473 9760 PO Box 1304, Hamilton, New Zealand - (Browns Bay, Auckland North Shore) - http://www.iconz.co.nz/~iwgordon UBINZ - Universal Basic Income - http://www.iconz.co.nz/~iwgordon/ubinz.htm From mreeves@chass.utoronto.ca Tue Sep 9 06:37:07 1997 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:33:40 -0400 From: Margaret Reeves To: Materialist Feminist Discussion List Subject: more questions about postmodern Marxism Thanks for the responses to the questions about the possibility of a postmodern Marxism. Being a student of literary theory rather than a philosopher, I feel the ground shifting a little beneath my keyboard, but I do have some questions about the postings. First, yes, I see the concerns about ethics and relativism, but I have run across some feminist and postmodern theorists who question whether the system of ethics which Western culture associates with and derives from the enlightenment is not 1. a system of thought which was developed with the rights and needs of a minority of the population in mind (ie white, male, middle and upper classes), and 2. not necessarily the only (or even the best) system of ethics from which we should derive our most cherished values. I am thinking, for example, of Carol Gilligan's work (I know -- there have been lots of objections raised about her own exclusions), but I want to make a point about the way her work suggests that a system based on individual rights does not necessarily speak to the needs of all members of the community. Another example comes from one of the values mentioned in Charu's post, that being freedom. Freedoms of various kinds for some people could very well limit freedoms for others. For example, if we privilege freedom of speech to such an extent that others' freedom _from_ hurtful kinds of language behaviours like hate propaganda is limited, then in what sense does everyone have equal access to freedom. Do we not, in a relativist sort of way, need to locate freedoms, and recognize that one's freedom to do this or that is inextricably connected with one's access to power, and that one's freedom from discriminatory behaviours like the speech acts of hate propagandists is also determined by one's access (or lack of access) to power. Is the relativism which is associated with postmodern thought not, then, a positive quality to some extent in that it opens up the possibility of revisiting some rather heavily entrenched values from another perspective? Could it be that while postmodern theory does not, in all of its various manifestations, offer a comprehensive ethical system, it does allow for the possibility of raising questions about whose values count more? Second, with respect to Charu's observations about whether history is reversible in or out of pomo, I think what is most valuable about pomo critiques of historical writing is that it returns us to the question of who is writing, what kind of narrative have we got, and what kind of needs of contemporary culture does it serve. This, I think, is where I still have my question nagging at me about how Marxism and postmodernism can be linked, where one theoretical perspective approaches history from within an intellectual frame that relies on a narrative (or as postmodernists would say, a metanarrative), whereas the other theoretical perspective wants to look for seams and gaps in whatever sorts of narratives it confronts. This, I think, is the turn implied in the prefix "post," that is, a self-reflexive turn which insistently turns a theory or position back on itself to examine its own situatedness. Is it, then, that a postmodern Marxism aims to be more self-conscious about and attentive to the kind of history which it writes and on which its assumptions depend? If so, what do we do about Jameson's negative characterization of postmodernism as the cultural logic of late capitalism? Margaret Reeves From MEYERSON@iris.uncg.edu Tue Sep 9 06:44:27 1997 From: MEYERSON@iris.uncg.edu Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Postmodern Marxism To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu I agree with Howie's negative judgments on judgmental relativism and was disturbed by Charu's dismissal of the question of epistemology as a false dichotomy (false dichotomies for one thing can only be objected to justifiably on realist premises). To see just how importnat this realism debate is, one need only look at debates over "racial" superiority/inferiority, which i suspect will never go away under capitalism in great part due to the hegemony of reductionism and individualism. The debate over biodeterminism--Murray/Hernstein/Lynn vs. Tucker, Gould, Lewontin, Hubbard--is not principally a matter of clashing and incommensureable value commitments. Factual judgments are entangled with these conflicting commitments at every turn. The antiracists rightly see their oopponent's racist values as intimately connected erroneous judgments, erroneous methods (Gould and Lewontin's emphasis on reification, not to mention outright distorition and falsification--the cyril Burt case etc.) The aaas 's recent rejection of the meaningfulness of race as a biological category certainly coflicts with the racist traditions notion of racial typologies. Is it not true that our knowledge of genetics is evidence for the falsity of the racial types thesis upon which racist values rest? Are the antiracists detailed critiques nothing but rhetorical elaborations of fundamentally a priori value commitments? If this were the case, could we ever offer evidence on its behalf without contradiciting our relativism? By the way, just to see the hold that the fact/value split has over us, it is interesting to note that Gould, his work notwithstanding, thinks that questions of political value can be separated from facts about human equality. that human equality is a contingent fact (the title of an essay of his in Flamingo's Smile) carries no evaluative implications. This is of course nonsense. If ecological disaster and massive inequality produced large populations like, to quote Ernest Mandel, "the new 'race' of pygmies arisen in North East Brazil as a resutl of "several generations of hunger and malnutrition," emancipatory projects based in rather traighforward ways on our capacity for signifcant moral deliberation would be altered to say the least, if not undermined. G. Meyerson (Meyerson@IRIS.UNCG. edu) From MEYERSON@iris.uncg.edu Tue Sep 9 06:47:33 1997 From: MEYERSON@iris.uncg.edu Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: more questions about postmodern Marxism To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Freedom of speech does need to be connected to questions of power--speech is relative to power but this is not relativism. Presumably we hold our theories of power to be true. Pluralist theories of power, upon which notions of free speech rest, conflict with Marxian theories of power. Is this not a question of evidence (theory dependent of course and very complex)? gm From gyokota@lisa.lang.osaka-u.ac.jp Wed Sep 10 00:58:07 1997 Subject: Thanks! To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:57:45 +0900 (JST) From: "Gerry Yokota-Murakami" In-Reply-To: from "Regine Fourie" at Sep 5, 97 09:54:17 am Dear Regine, Thanks for the encouragement. I'd love to hear more about you and your work on the list or privately. Gerry in Japan From laur@frontiernet.net Wed Sep 24 10:33:48 1997 To: matfem@csf.colorado.edu From: "L. Gundersen" Subject: Call for Papers Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 10:55:34 PDT CALL FOR PAPERS Deadline: Postmarked Dec. 15, 1997 SoftLine Information announces it's 1997 Call for Papers to be included in a new category of it's full-text, focused CD-ROM database of carefully selected women's publications, Women 'R'. SoftLine invites contributions to the database that address: WOMEN'S ISSUES WITH AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE This is an opportunity to share previously unpublished papers with a wide audience. Women 'R' presents in-depth coverage of the wide range of subjects that impact and reflect on the lives of women. It is utilized as a research tool at major academic and public libraries and will soon be available online through selected online subscription services. The database has been developed with the encouragement of the Collections Development Committee of ACRL's Women's Studies Section. Background information on SoftLine Information and Women 'R' is located at our website www.slinfo.com/wr.htm -Research should be original and not previously published. -Essays should be no less that 5 pages in length. -Submissions must include a summary of not more than two pages describing the relationship of the paper to the theme, the theoretical framework, sources of data, methodology and results and their implications. -Two copies of each of the Summary, Work and separate Title page with name, address and contact information. -Deadline for submission is postmarked no later than Dec. 15, 1997 -Notification of acceptance will be mailed by Jan. 30, 1998. Submissions will be reviewed by Editorial Board for content. Send to: Eileen Heckerling, President SoftLine Information, Inc. phone: (203) 975-8292 20 Summer Street fax: (203) 975-8347 Stamford, CT 06901 email:custsupp@slinfo.com From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Mon Sep 29 16:13:44 1997 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:13:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: matfem@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Request for information Does anyone know whether Althusser's posthumously published essay on The Theses on Feuerbach has been translated and published in English? Many thanks, Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology Campus Box 327 University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, Colorado 80309 Voice: 303-492-7080 Fax: 303-492-5105