Saturday, October 3, 2009
Marxism vs. Feminism
Jameson's On Interpretation insists that all interpretation must be political in order to be authentic. I'm having a hard time imagining how this could be true. I guess that readers who want to see the great Marxist narrative will see it. Just as readers who want to see Freudian underpinnings will see them. But isn't it possible that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (to quote Freud). Another objection I have to Jameson's argument is that it makes the class struggle the most important thing humanity has engaged in, ever. I think issues of personal politics and power are more fundamental - especially gender issues. After all, gender is the most basic division between humans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is a cigar just a cigar? It represents much more than what it is, doesn't it? I can see your point with this, but can we ever not interpret something; or are we, as humans, always interpreting meaning from 'things'? I don't see how all interpretation must be political to be authentic, I agree with you there. The "it" is what it is - sometimes that is true, but most times don't you think "it" usuallly isn't what it is? This is all so frustrating!
ReplyDeleteBut aren't issues of personal power (who has it, who doesn't, and how that gets decided),gender,and the position that is assigned to various roles within a society all essentially the concerns of the political. If by "Political" we mean that structure of social interaction that involves the use, control, and manipulation of shared resources to promote group or personal gain, then yes, it would be difficult to see something as truly an apolitical issue. Perhaps it is just the skeptic in me, but I believe that any time a group of people are in a room for more than five minutes, the framework to determine who's on top will start to evolve. Class struggle--sometimes it happens even in our class.
ReplyDelete