?

Log in


phalangingle in theoryishotcrew

Can I just substitute an interpretive dance in place of a list?

Although I am generally of the opinion that I would never be a member of a club that would have someone like me as a member, I decided to give this a try.

<input ... ><input ... >
 
<lj-cut text="List">

  1. "Foucault" in "Dictionnaire des philosophes" 1984, - Maurice Florence

 

  1. Distinction - Bourdieu

 

  1. El Laberinto de la Soledad - Paz

 

  1. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life - Goffman

 

  1. Borderlands/La Frontera - Anzaldua

 

  1. The Interpretation of Cultures  - Geertz

 

  1. Aberrations in Black - Ferguson

 

  1. Ain't I a Woman  - bell hooks

 

  1. Giving an Account of Oneself - Butler

 

  1. Selections from the Prison Notebooks - Gramsci


<input ... ></input><input ... >
 

Comments

This becomes a question of consideration more than understanding. In my previous reply I threw out a quick response about critic's ability to grasp the theories of this scholarship. Instead of lack of ability, it seems that examples like the reconsideration of the Moynihan report reveal a lack of consideration by mainstream disciplines. If mainstream disciplines engaged in dialogue with these studies they could both contribute to the scholarship and seriously reconsider established methods, theories, and worldviews. If these studies are viewed as 'intellectual fads' or as marginal movements then there is little incentive for scholars in the mainstream of their disciplines to engage them.

This scholarship covers a range of traditional disciplines and is building its own body of work and shared theoretical perspectives. While postcolonialism, discourse and cultural theory, feminism, critical race theory, and diaspora studies have all had some impact on mainstream disciplines, the various emerging studies engage more significantly with these intellectual movements.
I feel at times like you are giving answers like we are your comps committee and not a group of people you'd hang out with at a bar and chat about Foucault with. I kind of like to think theory requires heavy drinking.
I'm not sure I understand the example. (I'm also turned off by the jargon. How is "normative horizon" related to "normative grammar", and why should anyone ever use either term?) The Moynihan report was supposed to be a descriptive study of the actual condition of America in the mid-1960s. Some the things you mention here were probably true at that time: most African American women probably were heterosexual, and dependent upon men. (The same, of course, would have been true of most white women at that time.) If you want to understand a large-scale social phenomenon, it makes sense to look at what is true of most of your subjects. It's not clear to me, then, what the point of hook's critique is supposed to be.

I also can't follow the bit about the black power movement. This seems like a tangent from the Moynihan Report.

Anyway, even granting that these are important critiques of the dominant paradigms underlying social science, what keeps this critiques from originating within those disciplines? Why, for instance, couldn't a sociologist have pointed out that the Moynihan report lacked attention to women performing low-wage service labor?


A separate issue: I'm a bit deterred by your not answering certain questions above, especially the difficult and/or unorthodox questions. For instance, see ceciliaj's question directly above mine. This group values a certain amount of informality, and questions like those are a good test of your fit.
most African American women probably were heterosexual

I would slightly restate this sentence to say "Most African-American women probably identified as heterosexual" or something since what is meant by "normative" and normalizing means that one feels compelled to conform to certain standards. If it is considered deviant to be or identify as homosexual, then many people surveyed would either consciously or unconsciously feel pressured to respond with the norm. How many people answer honestly when asked "Do you think people of color should use separate facilities?" In the 1960s, it was "normative" to say yes they think they should whereas now, this is considered deviant. I think that i what you are trying to get at, a_priori, right?