Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

I read it actually. I don't see how your "functions of sociobiology" support your argument. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that no matter what we do to rid ourselves of consumerist trends, new ones will simply appear. Even if all ideals are bound to be subsumed under a consumerist hegemonic system, why must we abandon them?

Well one can just embrace, but that seems to be contradictory to the typical feminist position - in theory if not in practice.

I'm not opposed to consumption in itself, or equality in itself, and so on. It is rather the means and ends of these things where problems emerge. To quote Bastiat on these misunderstandings about distinctions betweens means/ends and the thing itself:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

 

[Einherjar86]

I would criticize your over-zealousness to say that the project of feminism is so easily subsumed by consumer interests. There is certainly a popular vein of feminist ideology, as someone mentioned above; but the problem with most mainstream versions of these theories/methodologies is that they adopt the conclusion of the arguments and then supplement their own awful, watered-down explanations for arriving at those conclusions.

We can maintain a feminist project beyond the confines of consumerism; it is being done, in fact. The trick lies in participating in the discourse (as Addo suggests) rather than simply pursuing the conclusion as though it's a utopian vision set in stone, and already given. People should read Judith Butler or Toril Moi, not the author of Lean In. But people don't read those theorists, because they're not amenable to consumer interests. There's a whole field of feminism left practically untouched by consumerism because it presents a serious challenge to power politics.

 

[Dak]

I would criticize your over-zealousness to say that the project of feminism is so easily subsumed by consumer interests. There is certainly a popular vein of feminist ideology, as someone mentioned above; but the problem with most mainstream versions of these theories/methodologies is that they adopt the conclusion of the arguments and then supplement their own awful, watered-down explanations for arriving at those conclusions.

We can maintain a feminist project beyond the confines of consumerism; it is being done, in fact. The trick lies in participating in the discourse (as Addo suggests) rather than simply pursuing the conclusion as though it's a utopian vision set in stone, and already given. People should read Judith Butler or Toril Moi, not the author of Lean In. But people don't read those theorists, because they're not amenable to consumer interests. There's a whole field of feminism left practically untouched by consumerism because it presents a serious challenge to power politics.

"Participating in the discourse" is precisely the sort of meaninglesss corporate jingoism that always-already undermines whatever professed aims are covered in said discourse.

I'm trying to make a metapoint about the necessary implications of feminism as a whole, and referencing non-extreme-fringe(or, the fringe which is not the radfem extreme, and fringe by definition as unpopular in the literal sense of mass-acceptance/awareness) writers who are essentially making rather trivial points (if they are, I don't profess to be familiar with the works of Butler) about wouldn't it be nice if we could all just stop repressing each other, does not counter this.

As soon as one claims that genders as concepts themselves are repressive, one has experienced the collapsing of ideology into itself. Maybe the ultimate dialectical result of gender equality is no gender, but this change now makes feminism the enemy of the feminine (and obviously without saying, the masculine as well). If someone wants to take that position, fine. But don't call it feminism and don't get mad when people begin to reject feminism because of the contradictions.

My metapoint is that this current popular form of feminism, which is not by any means in itself "radfem", serves only elite interests in every sense of the statement.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Participating in the discourse" is precisely the sort of meaninglesss corporate jingoism that always-already undermines whatever professed aims are covered in said discourse.

This is confusing, and somewhat unqualified...? Also, you use "always-already" far too often and not always correctly.

"Always-already" constitutes a paradox of action and meaning; saying that "participating in the discourse" is an example of corporate jingoism simultaneously means that the discursive tradition must precede the creation of corporate jingoism. If corporate jingoism undermines the effectiveness of discursive criticism, it also simultaneously allows that discourse to take place effectively.

"Always-already" (or always already, no hyphen) is a deconstructionist term, although it has a history prior to this. It deals with the paradoxical deadlock from the question: do bodies give rise to language, or does language produce bodies? This is a major question in critical theory, and one that is at issue here.

I'm trying to make a metapoint about the necessary implications of feminism as a whole, and referencing non-extreme-fringe(or, the fringe which is not the radfem extreme, and fringe by definition as unpopular in the literal sense of mass-acceptance/awareness) writers who are essentially making rather trivial points (if they are, I don't profess to be familiar with the works of Butler) about wouldn't it be nice if we could all just stop repressing each other, does not counter this.

As soon as one claims that genders as concepts themselves are repressive, one has experienced the collapsing of ideology into itself. Maybe the ultimate dialectical result of gender equality is no gender, but this change now makes feminism the enemy of the feminine (and obviously without saying, the masculine as well). If someone wants to take that position, fine. But don't call it feminism and don't get mad when people begin to reject feminism because of the contradictions.

Gender as concepts can be repressive; but they are also expressive, liberatory, and meaningful. My point about critical feminism (that makes far from trivial points, thank you for your skepticism though) is that it acknowledges the biological body while simultaneously acknowledging that any and all signifiers we deploy to present the body - words, but also gestures, behaviors, attitudes, etc. - actively perform a certain gender, and this cannot be dissociated from the body. The point of "always-already" is that an endless discursive tradition is at play that oscillates between myopia and mixture.

Simply put: yes, critical discourses handicap themselves, but they remain aware of this fact. The entire effort is a process, not a product. This is where popular feminism falls victim to the utopian vision.

My metapoint is that this current popular form of feminism, which is not by any means in itself "radfem", serves only elite interests in every sense of the statement.

It may partially serve elite interests, but certainly not only elite interests.

 

[Dak]

This is confusing, and somewhat unqualified...? Also, you use "always-already" far too often and not always correctly.

"Always-already" constitutes a paradox of action and meaning; saying that "participating in the discourse" is an example of corporate jingoism simultaneously means that the discursive tradition must precede the creation of corporate jingoism. If corporate jingoism undermines the effectiveness of discursive criticism, it also simultaneously allows that discourse to take place effectively.

"Always-already" (or always already, no hyphen) is a deconstructionist term, although it has a history prior to this. It deals with the paradoxical deadlock from the question: do bodies give rise to language, or does language produce bodies? This is a major question in critical theory, and one that is at issue here.

I think it works quite well here. I won't define or explain jingoism as I'm sure you know what it is, and "Participate in the discourse" or "contribute to the dialogue" etc have all been rendered jingoistic and function specifically to prevent dialogue or discourse except about "dialoguing" and "discoursing". If this isn't recursive I don't know what is.

Edit: If always already refers to discursion rather than recursion then I have been using it incorrectly.....but always already seems much more applicable to recursion.

Gender as concepts can be repressive; but they are also expressive, liberatory, and meaningful. My point about critical feminism (that makes far from trivial points, thank you for your skepticism though) is that it acknowledges the biological body while simultaneously acknowledging that any and all signifiers we deploy to present the body - words, but also gestures, behaviors, attitudes, etc. - actively perform a certain gender, and this cannot be dissociated from the body. The point of "always-already" is that an endless discursive tradition is at play that oscillates between myopia and mixture.

Simply put: yes, critical discourses handicap themselves, but they remain aware of this fact. The entire effort is a process, not a product. This is where popular feminism falls victim to the utopian vision.

I think we might be saying the same thing here. But I don't see how this isn't ultimately trivial - unless the fact that it must be stated constantly as a fringe element makes it non-trivial. It appears trivial to me.

It may partially serve elite interests, but certainly not only elite interests.

I'm interested in what non-elite interests are being served.

 

[Einherjar86]

In order to see the non-elite interests you have to disillusion yourself of your earlier claim: that is, that participating in discourse is somehow rendered impotent by corporate jingoism. Yes, I know what jingoism is; but you overestimate the extent to which critical debate has been appropriated by it, especially "corporate" jingoism. I don't see any evidence for this, which is why I said your claim is unqualified. Critics deploy terms in order to situate themselves in a discourse, but there are both debilitating and enhancing aspects of doing so.

Ultimately, all institutions, discursive or otherwise, must operate within a fixed circuit of corporate (what used to be industrial) capitalism; but this doesn't mean they only serve elite interests. The non-elites who have benefited are obvious! There was a time when blacks were considered, under the discursive tradition, to be property and less than human; but the discourse evolved, and black subjectivity changed. The same goes for women. The same goes for gays. The concepts and definitions of, for instance, identity and subjectivity are always changing, and these are discursive practices. Certainly, they may yield some unsavory results, but this doesn't negate their positive contributions to the public sphere.

 

[Dak]

There is another argument that says the legal/corporate mechanisms that supposedly elevated blacks from a position as property merely changed the type and method of ownership/owners of blacks. Instead of being owned by individuals in (mostly) southern states, blacks became the property of the political elite. Additionally, the former owners of blacks also became property of this same elite. Of course, the political elite is in place beholding to non-govco corporate elite.

In short: "Emancipation" was not emancipation at all but instead broader enslavement under new management (masters). If you wish that I grant that this "slavery lite" is improvement in a material sense I could agree to a point.

 

[Einherjar86]

First, a serious clarification is needed here: blacks are not the property of the political elite in any economic sense. That's a rhetorical twist of language that you are using to achieve an effect, and the effect is of the following nature: "Leftist progressives cater to black interests, and thus have them by the balls." This is not ownership in any actual sense, merely in a figurative and manipulative sense, which you use to critique leftist agendas.

I'm not taking sides here; I'm merely calling you out on your rhetoric.

The discursive treatment of black subjects - or women, or gays, etc. - takes place on a level beyond what liberal politicians say on television. It takes place over decades, from the narratives of Olaudah Equiano and Frederick Douglass to the novels of Ralph Ellison and Toni Morrison; and there are quantifiable changes to how blacks have been viewed and treated on a cultural level. Subjectivity is constituted discursively, and it's a power that exceeds the control of the State.

 

[Dak]

First, a serious clarification is needed here: blacks are not the property of the political elite in any economic sense. That's a rhetorical twist of language that you are using to achieve an effect, and the effect is of the following nature: "Leftist progressives cater to black interests, and thus have them by the balls." This is not ownership in any actual sense, merely in a figurative and manipulative sense, which you use to critique leftist agendas.

I'm not taking sides here; I'm merely calling you out on your rhetoric.

That is one way of interpreting that, but it is limited by it's rhetorical nature as you say. I mean specifically, literally, that citizens of the United States are the property of the United States.

there are quantifiable changes to how blacks have been viewed and treated on a cultural level. Subjectivity is constituted discursively, and it's a power that exceeds the control of the State.

I disagree. The quantifiable changes are precisely changes in how blacks are treated by the State.

 

[Einherjar86]

That is one way of interpreting that, but it is limited by it's rhetorical nature as you say. I mean specifically, literally, that citizens of the United States are the property of the United States.

I disagree. The quantifiable changes are precisely changes in how blacks are treated by the State.

It is the State that enables us to be constituted as subjects in the first place. Subjects never emerged until organized society emerged. The very foundations of subjecthood lie in the institutionalization of the subject as a social being. Our capacity for discursively rewriting subjectivity derive from our constitution by the State.

In this sense we may be thought of as the State's property, but simultaneously as that which empowers the State. Discourse is an endless treatment of this co-constitution.

 

[Dak]

It is the State that enables us to be constituted as subjects in the first place. Subjects never emerged until organized society emerged. The very foundations of subjecthood lie in the institutionalization of the subject as a social being. Our capacity for discursively rewriting subjectivity derive from our constitution by the State.

In this sense we may be thought of as the State's property, but simultaneously as that which empowers the State. Discourse is an endless treatment of this co-constitution.

State =/= society/civilization, organized or otherwise. That is the very point of pretty much the entirety of libertarian/anarchist philosophy. That property empowers the owner is somewhat trivial.

 

[Einherjar86]

And I pretty much think that the libertarian/anarchist philosophy makes an arbitrary distinction on this point. As Deleuze and Guattari say, the State has always existed.

 

[Dak]

And I pretty much think that the libertarian/anarchist philosophy makes an arbitrary distinction on this point. As Deleuze and Guattari say, the State has always existed.

Well I don't disagree that the State has always existed, if we describe a State as possessing certain fundamental characteristics, and subsequently labeling states. If we tie civilization to something as simple as a written language, it's pretty obvious the state pre-dates civilization, although maybe not society.

However, if we also define civilization and society based on certain attributes, attributes which do not beg the question by including "having a State" or "being within a State", it is possible to separate them both theoretically and practically.

The problem for anarchist philosophers has not been to theoretically/practically separate Society from State, but the practical ability to maintain the absence of a State.

Furthermore, that sort of critque of states also opens up economic history to being described as "always capitalistic".

 

[Dak]

Can't remember if this got posted before, apologies as it is only indirectly related to feminism and the state:

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Scientists find ‘hidden brain signatures’ of consciousness in vegetative state patients Scientists in Cambridge have found hidden signatures in the brains of people in a vegetative state, which point to networks that could support consciousness even when a patient appears to be unconscious and unresponsive. The study could help doctors identify patients who are aware despite being unable to communicate.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...of-consciousness-in-vegetative-state-patients

Research Article
Spectral Signatures of Reorganised Brain Networks in Disorders of Consciousness
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003887

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I like this guys channel

Video starts off fairly simple and finishes with a few really great thought provoking ideas

 

[Einherjar86]

Much (not all obviously) of what is against the law is so because it is a crime, it isn't a crime because it's against the law.

This sounds very backwards to me. Do you see how this implies that crime can be metaphysically identified and absolute? And is that what you're implying?

 

[Dak]

This sounds very backwards to me. Do you see how this implies that crime can be metaphysically identified and absolute? And is that what you're implying?

No it doesn't. It is still anthropocentric and subjective. I'm just rejecting legal codification as a requirement. Ossified institutions and tablets of stone/papyrus/paper aren't a necessity.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm disputing your claim that the argument for organized crime (as I paraphrased it in the other thread) is the same as that for law enforcement. Bear in mind, I know you were joking around, but I also know you were being serious.

I'm going to quote this again...

Much (not all obviously) of what is against the law is so because it is a crime, it isn't a crime because it's against the law.

...and break it down:

Much (not all obviously) of what is against the law is so because it is a crime

If this is true, then it suggests that crime is crime in and of itself; crime is against the law because it is a crime. If you're considering crime in some specific way here that's going unspoken, then you need to be explicit about it.

it isn't a crime because it's against the law.

As soon as you brought in the topic of police enforcement, you made crime about the law. The functions of crime syndicates and organized law enforcement differ dramatically when viewed historically.

Crime did not preexist law; other institutions may have: sin, moral indecency, vague forms of injustice - but not criminal infraction, which is the major difference between an illegal gang and law enforcement (in a definitional, indexical sense; obviously it is true that law enforcement officials can commit crimes). Crime is specifically a legal institution (or a direct result of legal institutions).

This is where I'm drawing this from:

The accumulation of wealth and armed power and the concentration of judicial power in the hands of a few were one and the same process operating in the early Middle Ages, reaching its maturity at the time of the formation of the first great medieval monarchy, in the middle and at the end of the twelfth century. At that time, things appeared that were completely new relative to feudal society, the Carolingian Empire, and the old rules of Roman Law.

First: A mode of proceeding that is no longer a contestation between individuals and a voluntary acceptance by those individuals of a certain number of rules of settlement but, rather, one imposed from above on individuals, adversaries, and parties.

"Organized crime" mediates disputes between individuals, and operates more along the lines of this pre-feudal mode.

Second: There appeared a totally new figure, without precedent in Roman law - the prosecutor [...] the representative of the sovereign, king, or the master.

Third: An absolutely new concept appeared - the infraction. So long as the judicial drama unfolded between two individuals, the victim and the accused, it was only a matter of the wrong that one individual had done to another. [...] From the moment that the sovereign, or his representative, the prosecutor, said, "I too was injured by the offense," the wrong was not just an offense of one individual against another, but also an individual's offense against the state itself. Thus, in the concept of crime the old concept of wrong was to be replaced by that of infraction.

The justification/argument for law enforcement derives from an entirely different set of legal precedents than that of organized crime.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]