Re: code name: "feminist!"

Jay Lemke (jllbc who-is-at cunyvm.cuny.edu)
Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:22:22 -0400

Ana Shane and I do not perhaps disagree as much as might appear. I
certainly do believe that dialogue between exclusively defined groups is
possible and necessary, and that was the point of my suggestion that small
face-to-face groups of people from different or categorially opposed
communities and social positions CAN form new communities in which the old
oppositions are re-shaped into something new and valuable for all of them.
It is dialogue that makes this possible.

I also HOPE that it is possible in some sense to see through the eyes of
someone from a categorially opposed background, but I am not really sure in
what sense exactly this happens or how. I am not persuaded by the arguments
from human universality that are usually made as the basis for this
possibility, but I think that it does sometimes occur, for reasons we
ought to understand better and not assume are obvious. We do not see AS the
Other does, but we can come to appreciate the POSITION, especially relative
to our own position, FROM WHICH the Other views things differently than we
do. This is already a great step.

Diane seemed surprised that Ana would speak for the possibility of the
'master narrative' but I think that perhaps Ana means something a bit
different by the term. In the context of her argument and appeal, I think
that what may have been meant is not a dominating or hegemonic view that
imposes itself on all others, but rather the possibility of a consensus
view in which we can better understand one another's positionings.
Theoretically, this possibility may depend quite a bit on what "consensus"
means. It cannot, I am now convinced, mean a fully SHARED view, seeing
things from the SAME perspective. But it can perhaps mean MUTUALLY
ARTICULATED views, and to some extent mutual understanding and empathy. I
do not want to veer to far toward romanticism in these matters, but I think
we have to consider that affective relationships, of the sort that ground
empathies, are not necessarily subject to the same dichotomous
category-exclusions as are explicitly semiotically articulated beliefs,
attitudes, and values.

The Other of our bodies may be quite a different kind of other from the
Other of our opinions. And the Other of our material interests may be less
dichotomizing than our usual (masculinized?) logics allow.

What are the grounds of human solidarity and empathy that elude the logic
of categorial opposition? and are misrepresented by models of categorial
alliance and similarity?

JAY.

---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------