Actually, Dom, I think there is a point, and it's rather larger than
Dworkin, altho she's the present case-in-point. Many grand theories of
human culture are informative but none finally succeed, I think, because
they're reductive and human cultures are extraordinarily various. Not to
speak of the individual consciousness. In Dworkin's case (I haven't read
this book, but I've read her in the past, and your explanation gives me
little reason to think she's changed in this regard at least) one has to
imagine the society she envisions, purified of a great deal of difference,
even at the level of fantasy. A real puritanism, whether or not it wears a
ruffled collar. Which is not to say that her conception of things is dumb
or uninformative, only that its usefulness is real but limited and that she
fails to construct, imho, the general theory that I think she's attempting.
At 12:44 AM 7/9/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>I have nothing further to say on this thread. There is no point.
>
>- Dom
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|