Butler and Fraser
Ming directed me to two articles about some intersections between the struggle against heterosexism and Marxist capitalist critique. Judith Butler's article posits that Nancy Fraser (the other author) reduces that struggle to the "merely cultural" - a critique that situates heterosexism not as a material case of maldistribution of resources but as a cultural case of misrecognition. I think the most interesting issue that this raises is the problematization of the idea of superstructure. Fraser's critique aims to make a distinction between superstructures: capitalism and institutionalized misrecognition (which she does not agree is "merely cultural" but rather a very material and real concern that nevertheless needs to be distinguished from the economic rather than from what Butler refers to as the material).
Does redistribution redress maldistribution as well as misrecognition? Or, is Fraser's distinction necessary, thus making it unnecessary to overthrow capitalism to acheive recognition? As a naive Marxist, I guess I completely bought into the panacea of overthrowing capitalist superstructure as Butler suggests. However, as I read Fraser's article I became a little more unsure. The underlying distinction here is between status and class - a distinction that did not exist in precapitalist societies because there was a rigid symbolic order in place that equated status and class. However, in capitalist societies, status and class diverge. The emergence of capitalism thus created both problems with its existence and its abolition.
Does redressing the problem of misrecognition then solve the problems of maldistribution? Can that be our new superstructure? That seems a little too naive and utopian like some Kantian mantra - to treat people as ends in themselves rather than as a means - that purports to palliate the ills of an unjust society. Also, both authors seem to have the quasi-postructuralist project of preserving difference. Does the elimination of superstructure also eliminate this difference and assimilate it into a new normativity or orthodoxy? Both authors offer suggestions about trajectories towards redistribution or recognition, but they don't really explain what a post-redistribution or post-recognition society would look like. Would a new base-superstructure paradigm emerge? The limitation of Marxism is that historical materialism purports to push through class, structure, and social injustice to some nebulous end. Can that end exist? Is it sustainable? That seems to be the important open question that Marxist theory and queer theory need to address.
I don't think I've thought this through to offer anything constructive. I think at this point I just have questions raised by these articles. I tend to agree with Fraser's insistent distinctions though because it realizes that perhaps there is no such thing as superstructure - that we can't pursue unilateral solutions to polymorphous problems. However, I also might be falling into the trap of agreeing with my most recently read author.
If anyone wants to read the articles I can email them to you.
Does redistribution redress maldistribution as well as misrecognition? Or, is Fraser's distinction necessary, thus making it unnecessary to overthrow capitalism to acheive recognition? As a naive Marxist, I guess I completely bought into the panacea of overthrowing capitalist superstructure as Butler suggests. However, as I read Fraser's article I became a little more unsure. The underlying distinction here is between status and class - a distinction that did not exist in precapitalist societies because there was a rigid symbolic order in place that equated status and class. However, in capitalist societies, status and class diverge. The emergence of capitalism thus created both problems with its existence and its abolition.
Does redressing the problem of misrecognition then solve the problems of maldistribution? Can that be our new superstructure? That seems a little too naive and utopian like some Kantian mantra - to treat people as ends in themselves rather than as a means - that purports to palliate the ills of an unjust society. Also, both authors seem to have the quasi-postructuralist project of preserving difference. Does the elimination of superstructure also eliminate this difference and assimilate it into a new normativity or orthodoxy? Both authors offer suggestions about trajectories towards redistribution or recognition, but they don't really explain what a post-redistribution or post-recognition society would look like. Would a new base-superstructure paradigm emerge? The limitation of Marxism is that historical materialism purports to push through class, structure, and social injustice to some nebulous end. Can that end exist? Is it sustainable? That seems to be the important open question that Marxist theory and queer theory need to address.
I don't think I've thought this through to offer anything constructive. I think at this point I just have questions raised by these articles. I tend to agree with Fraser's insistent distinctions though because it realizes that perhaps there is no such thing as superstructure - that we can't pursue unilateral solutions to polymorphous problems. However, I also might be falling into the trap of agreeing with my most recently read author.
If anyone wants to read the articles I can email them to you.