I'm off on holiday tomorrow so i can't get in too deep on this one. Your
reading of Butler is, just about, the same as mine. Problem is that in
acknowledging that there is a materiality to the body, but then saying that
we can never get at it, she's got herself snared up in the same dilemma that
Kant go into: There is a real world but we can say nothing about it. Hence
all that we can say about is what we talk about. This is a very positivist
ontology, BTW. Now, we can, and do say lots about the materiality of the
body. More important, while Butler and most of the sociological tradition
(there is a good reason for this, division of labour etc, disciplinary
borders etc. BTW isn't Butler guilty of enforcing these?) are content to say
that the materiality of our bodies plays no role, others perfectly happy to
say that we can say LOTS about it are getting ready to use that knowledge;
want to get rid of homosexuality, no problem, we can eradicate the gay gene;
criminal tendencies Sir! no problem, erdicate criminal genes. So while we in
sociology etc, fiddle Rome burns.
To acknowledge that it is EXTREMELY difficult epistemologically to get at
the materiality of the body is a different question to what that materiality
consists of. Butler has a seemingly, socially constructed, or inbuilt
tendency to conflate her epistemology and her ontology. Still she's in good
company becuase so does most of the western philosphical tradition. If there
is a materiality, then might it not be an honest intellectual enterprise to
explore it. To say we can't get at it is to give up the intellectual
enterprise before we have begun. Besides, how does Butler _know- we can't
say anything about it?
I totally accept that we can only know things through certain descriptions,
but this is not to say that the world exists only in those descriptions, or
that only those descriptions play a role. I also BTW reject the thing
initself as you are positing it; it assumes a static thing, once and for all
time. To me reality is stratified, structured, differentiated and changing.
haven't time to check this. Probably loads of mistakes. Sorry!
Thank, (but unconvinced!!!)
s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
*******************************************************************
"We stand at the end of the age of reason.
A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising.
(Adolf Hitler)
*******************************************************************
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
reading of Butler is, just about, the same as mine. Problem is that in
acknowledging that there is a materiality to the body, but then saying that
we can never get at it, she's got herself snared up in the same dilemma that
Kant go into: There is a real world but we can say nothing about it. Hence
all that we can say about is what we talk about. This is a very positivist
ontology, BTW. Now, we can, and do say lots about the materiality of the
body. More important, while Butler and most of the sociological tradition
(there is a good reason for this, division of labour etc, disciplinary
borders etc. BTW isn't Butler guilty of enforcing these?) are content to say
that the materiality of our bodies plays no role, others perfectly happy to
say that we can say LOTS about it are getting ready to use that knowledge;
want to get rid of homosexuality, no problem, we can eradicate the gay gene;
criminal tendencies Sir! no problem, erdicate criminal genes. So while we in
sociology etc, fiddle Rome burns.
To acknowledge that it is EXTREMELY difficult epistemologically to get at
the materiality of the body is a different question to what that materiality
consists of. Butler has a seemingly, socially constructed, or inbuilt
tendency to conflate her epistemology and her ontology. Still she's in good
company becuase so does most of the western philosphical tradition. If there
is a materiality, then might it not be an honest intellectual enterprise to
explore it. To say we can't get at it is to give up the intellectual
enterprise before we have begun. Besides, how does Butler _know- we can't
say anything about it?
I totally accept that we can only know things through certain descriptions,
but this is not to say that the world exists only in those descriptions, or
that only those descriptions play a role. I also BTW reject the thing
initself as you are positing it; it assumes a static thing, once and for all
time. To me reality is stratified, structured, differentiated and changing.
haven't time to check this. Probably loads of mistakes. Sorry!
Thank, (but unconvinced!!!)
s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
*******************************************************************
"We stand at the end of the age of reason.
A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising.
(Adolf Hitler)
*******************************************************************
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------