Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Winterson is a slightly different case to most of the other people in this thread, with the possible exception of that illustrator, in that she's not primarily a journalist and commentator. However incoherent or self serving some of her opinions may be, they aren't why anyone has heard of her.

(I will admit to being horrified when someone here first pointed out that she once voted Lib Dem though).
 
There was also a Jeanette Winterson novel called "Written On The Body" - a literary way of saying that your experiences shape you and you can't hide it. I don't know if that is the origin of the whole thing though.
It goes at least as far back as Reich I'd say. Much further back if you start messing around with tattoing and branding as political expressions/tools of control of course. Not that these jokers mean it that literally.
 
It goes at least as far back as Reich I'd say. Much further back if you start messing around with tattoing and branding as political expressions/tools of control of course. Not that these jokers mean it that literally.
Wilhelm? That's interesting.
 
i think the most important question that sihhi raises is "does mainstream academia consider itself part of the regulatory discursive power?"

i suspect we all know the answer to that. i imagine they see themselves as the last gunfighters, robin hoods, making daring assaults on the bastions of power to reclaim the personhood of the masses from the tyranny of post-colonialism. when we all know that they're a bunch of ivory towered wankers who think they're radical socialists because they tip their cleaners at christmas.

This may have been more true a couple of decades ago than it is now., I suspect Too many academics nowadays don't appear to engage with politics at all, except on a personal level. For every Callinicos, there are a hundred others keeping their heads down for the sake of their careers.
Not that I've ever looked to academe for a source of liberatory power. That'd be too much like shooting oneself in both feet. :)
 
I did the post that took it to page 700 :cool:

Do I get a prize?
A big red pen of justice

180-741103-OS.jpg
 
Wilhelm? That's interesting.
He was quite radical for his time in his writings about the socio-sexual origins of what he called body armour - his term for the physiological and behavioural manifestations of personality (or character) structure that serves to shield us against our own and others neuroses. This was before he went off the rocks and started going on about orgone energy and all that.
 
Bloody hell, I'm agreeing with a Tory, and Louise Mensch at that, most particularly this bit, even if the rest of the article is bollocks that confuses feminism with capitalist greed done by a woman: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/reality-based-feminism-louise-mensch

We have the unfruitful spectacle of some of the most leftwing commentators in Britain wondering if they are being leftwing enough, or if their background even gives them the right to make an argument. "Check your privilege", for example, is a profoundly stupid trope that states that only those with personal experience of something should comment, or that if a person is making an argument, they should immediately give way if their view is contradicted by somebody with a different life story. It is hard to imagine a more dishonest intellectual position than "check your privilege", yet daily I see intelligent women who should know better embracing it.
Laurie Penny is an absolutely prime example; she does it all the time. The other day on Twitter she told people not to rise to what she felt was a race-baiting article by Rod Liddle in the Spectator. She was quite right. Everybody with a blog knows what "don't feed the trolls" means. However, she was angrily contradicted by the black comedian @AvaVidal who told her that people of colour were striking back and they should rise to it. Instead of defending her position, Penny caved, recanted, and commented mournfully that "having your privilege checked" was painful. Not for a minute did she consider that another person of colour might have agreed that you shouldn't feed the trolls. Or that she was just as entitled to her opinion as her interlocutor. No, the woman debating with her was a woman of colour and therefore, despite being clearly and obviously correct, Penny had to back down.
 
Laurie strikes back for the intersectionalistas!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/31/louise-mensch-privilege-internet

"Intersectionality" is another new bit of equality jargon that the stiff suits in the conservative commentariat loudly claim not to understand – despite or perhaps because of the fact that schoolchildren have been using it on the internet for years. All it means is that you cannot talk in any meaningful way about class without also talking about race, gender and sexuality, and vice versa."

Got that? You cannot talk in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY about class without also talking (simultaneously?) about race, gender and sexuality.
 
Got that? You cannot talk in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY about class without also talking (simultaneously?) about race, gender and sexuality.
Of course you could NEVER have a society that manages to have some form of "equality" among genders, sexualities, and races... but is also unequal when it comes to whoever relates to the ownership of production. Never in a million years!
 
Got that? You cannot talk in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY about class without also talking (simultaneously?) about race, gender and sexuality.


well you can't really.

but she misses a major trick, in that she has mistaken making up stories about gender and sexuality for having a meaningful discussion about class.

see, she sees class as being a subset of e.g. gender - i.e. once the [middle class] women are free everyone will be free. but gender is a subset of class - middle class women have more social capital / value than working class men, but working class men have more social capital / value than working class women. class is a better indicator of your likely success than race, gender, sexuality, or any of the other constructed values. therefore class NEEDS to be the main area of attack, with recognition that race, gender, sexuality are also areas in which inequality needs to be abolished inna socialist stylee.

tl; dr - her intersectionality is broken.
 
well you can't really.

but she misses a major trick, in that she has mistaken making up stories about gender and sexuality for having a meaningful discussion about class.

see, she sees class as being a subset of e.g. gender - i.e. once the [middle class] women are free everyone will be free. but gender is a subset of class - middle class women have more social capital / value than working class men, but working class men have more social capital / value than working class women. class is a better indicator of your likely success than race, gender, sexuality, or any of the other constructed values. therefore class NEEDS to be the main area of attack, with recognition that race, gender, sexuality are also areas in which inequality needs to be abolished inna socialist stylee.

tl; dr - her intersectionality is broken.

I'd be tempted to reverse the saying. I don't think you can have a meaningful chat about race/gender/sex without reference to class, because it overdetermines the content of those categories. I'm not so sure it necessarily cuts the other way. We can see that all history is the history of class war for example. To see all history as the history of conflict over sexuality would be a less useful mode of interpretation, although an interesting book no doubt.
 
I can't believe this rubbish appears to be one of the dominant narratives on the left at the moment. I mean, no-one is saying this stuff doesn't matter, but we're living through one of the worst periods of politics in recent memory - this is arguably worse than the Thatcher years now - and all the stuff which people have fought for for many years is being dismantled and sold/given to the private sector....and people are privilege point-scoring when arguably their efforts could be better directed elsewhere

ah fuck it, it's too depressing :(
 
I'd be tempted to reverse the saying. I don't think you can have a meaningful chat about race/gender/sex without reference to class, because it overdetermines the content of those categories. I'm not so sure it necessarily cuts the other way. We can see that all history is the history of class war for example. To see all history as the history of conflict over sexuality would be a less useful mode of interpretation, although an interesting book no doubt.

good point!
 
I can't believe this rubbish appears to be one of the dominant narratives on the left at the moment. I mean, no-one is saying this stuff doesn't matter, but we're living through one of the worst periods of politics in recent memory - this is arguably worse than the Thatcher years now - and all the stuff which people have fought for for many years is being dismantled and sold/given to the private sector....and people are privilege point-scoring when arguably their efforts could be better directed elsewhere

ah fuck it, it's too depressing :(
innit
 
yes but outside commenteriat and campus politics, where is it the dominant narrative
I don't think the commentariat matter that much - particularly in broadsheets and the NS - but I think campus politics matter a lot in a country where close to half of young people go to university. For many of those people it's where they form their own political views for the first time. Even in countries where much smaller proportions of the population go to university, student politics often has a lot of significance and influence in national politics. Admittedly these days in the UK we are talking about a relatively small number of people actively involved in politics on campuses, but they are a significant percentage of the relatively small number of people involved in leftist political campaigning in total.

Though I'm not saying the privilege/intersectionality debate is the most off-putting thing in student political circles. On a possibly controversial note, what could be more counterproductive than emphasising working class identity to people who in their own minds are probably at university to ensure they either stay or become 'middle class'? In other countries people came up with a political role for 'intellectuals', which might include, for instance, the duty to assist those who didn't get their education. Instead people in this country seem to want to say 'oh the students will have to work for a wage too so we're all working class really and all in the same boat - join the working class revolution!'. I think it is unspeakably alienating to about 99.9% of people who hear it. Firstly they don't *want* to be working class (and why the hell should they? who the hell does?) and secondly they instinctively know that their interests are not aligned either with a British plasterer or a Bangladeshi textile factory worker.

I promised myself I'd give up trying to make these sorts of arguments here. *sigh*
 
I don't think the commentariat matter that much - particularly in broadsheets and the NS - but I think campus politics matter a lot in a country where close to half of young people go to university. For many of those people it's where they form their own political views for the first time. Even in countries where much smaller proportions of the population go to university, student politics often has a lot of significance and influence in national politics. Admittedly these days in the UK we are talking about a relatively small number of people actively involved in politics on campuses, but they are a significant percentage of the relatively small number of people involved in leftist political campaigning in total.

Though I'm not saying the privilege/intersectionality debate is the most off-putting thing in student political circles. On a possibly controversial note, what could be more counterproductive than emphasising working class identity to people who in their own minds are probably at university to ensure they either stay or become 'middle class'? In other countries people came up with a political role for 'intellectuals', which might include, for instance, the duty to assist those who didn't get their education. Instead people in this country seem to want to say 'oh the students will have to work for a wage too so we're all working class really and all in the same boat - join the working class revolution!'. I think it is unspeakably alienating to about 99.9% of people who hear it. Firstly they don't *want* to be working class (and why the hell should they? who the hell does?) and secondly they instinctively know that their interests are not aligned either with a British plasterer or a Bangladeshi textile factory worker.

I promised myself I'd give up trying to make these sorts of arguments here. *sigh*

How many people on campus are involved in this shite? Under 1% i reckon. Even there it means nothing beyond careerist and personal individual positioning. And none of these people are pushing class as one of the rubrics under which they operate as far as i can tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom