In order to fit in with postmodernist politics, we all have to subdue ourselves by adopting a masochistic mode, in order to hear the views of “the Other”. If we do not adequately subdue ourselves, we will not hear the message that this “Other” wishes to impart, and thus we will remain within the realm of moral un-edification, having only ourselves to blame for not being more spiritual.
The blindspot of postmodernist theorising is that it doesn’t allow for the fundamental aspect of the nature of power, which is that power does not wait for permission, or understanding, in order to come into being -- and once power relationships have come into being, stopping to police them is already too late. At best, identity politics acts as a palliative for those who are suffering from a particular identity. Its analysis is not deep enough, not historically founded enough, to take into account how reality might actually be altered.
In practical terms, postmodernist theorising is the idea that time should be frozen and that we should all stop and wait, before being given permission to express the kinds of identity that would be morally elevating to all concerned. (This is, for instance, the kind of identity Hugo Schwyzer has decided feminism is.)
Yet, there is no need for feminism to embroil itself in any kind of morality play. It shouldn't have to argue that it is beneficial for others -- such as men. My identity has become feminist because I have thrown off belief in patriarchal postures. Whether this is later analysed as a good thing, or viewed as being helpful to others, is a secondary issue at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment