Damien Peter Sutton:
> Whilst it's nice to hear a voice of relative reason here, I
> still find it slightly worrying that the salon's general
> focus on Western philosophy is understood as having some
> residual colonial aspect. Despite being historically
> inaccurate (if anything, it's us Brits who should be
> feeling colonial, not the Americans), it smells of
> essentialisations where such things lack usefulness and
> stunt intelligent discussion.
What could be more powerful, more authoritative, more persuasive, than a
hand which can flip Deleuze, hiphop, Hitchcock, Reality TV, Plato and Disney
like the same egg, all with an English, predominantly USAn spatula? And then
give the url?
Them vs Us may seem repellent to a liberal mindset that wants everything to
show 'relative reason' (see Johannes Fabian for a keen and very early
critique of cultural relativity in the Western context, and Spivak for a
recent exploration of 'accountable reason'), but what do you expect at this
late date? with history gathering itself for another shakedown, always north
of the muck? Essentialism, sunshine, can be strategically useful. The
colonial doesn't go away. The British Empire was only one of its most
visible peaks.
>
> I've been reading Cornel West lately (who describes the
> above), and none of the current argument satisfies his very
> good idea of a critical organic catalayst - someone capable
> of taking the benefits of both approaches.
How sweet. An idea that mixes and blends. Who would this 'someone' be,
Damien?
> Basically, I see only an old, hackneyed racism/anti-racism
> argument over the last few weeks, and there's not only
> (merely) a hair's breadth between the offensiveness of both
That the argument is old goes without saying. It doesn't mean we should (if
we could) tell it quietly ('a word in your ear, old boy') to leave. But you
know this. How would you like it re-constructed, then? what sort of sparkly
new language had you in mind?
> sides, but I'm becoming confused as to which argument is
> racist, and which is anti-racist.
I don't think you're confused at all.
>
> Panini is partly right, let's drop the reactive element
> here. Both parties clearly have an axe to grind before they
> enter the salon.
Salons are for genteel folk, who leave race, gender, religion and sexuality
at the door with their gloves.
>
> Let's also have some answers to the half-decent question
> posed, and not quite answered...
> Where do we go from here, in the Salon, and in academia?
You've had a few pointers already. The question that interests me is why you
don't see them.
> Damian
PMS
|