Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: April ::
Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0290.  Wednesday, 12 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:13:45 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0284  Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
 
(2)     From:   Skip Shand <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 20:48:23 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0284  Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 18:13:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0284  Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0284  Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
 
Although I would like to end this extremely abstract debate, I feel the perhaps
misguided need to defend myself against the attacks of Gabriel Egan and Imtiaz
Habib.
 
First, the position I take is absolutely counter to the position, say, taken in
THE BELL CURVE. My argument emphasizes not only the individuality of persons,
but also their extreme similarity. I take the position that there is absolutely
NO significant genetic difference among the peoples of this world. May I point
out that that is an egalitarian position?  I do not emphasize cultural
difference, or non-rational hatreds based on these supposed differences.
 
Second, I am not in favor of starving babies. I am not in favor of ethnic
cleansing or culture wars. Why would someone who emphasizes human unity be seen
as a racist? Or racialist, if you will?
 
Third,  my account of the learning process takes into account Habib's concept
that "we live in our feelings," but not just "about our bodies." We would not
know our world if we had no feelings. Montaigne, as you know, has an extended
essay on this topic. And, without our bodies, we would have no feelings.
 
Fourth, I am not a megalomaniac. Nothing I can or may do will "preserve the
power relations of a dominant ideology" or any "particular Eurocentric world
view."
 
Fifth, Eurocentric world views emphasize cultural diversity, with the submerged
implication that any culture not European is inferior. If you indeed have read
and understood my postings "over the last several years," this position is the
very position I have been arguing AGAINST!!!
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Skip Shand <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 11 Apr 1995 20:48:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0284  Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0284  Re: Early Modern Subjectivity
 
Back there a bit, I recall, John D. said 'symbolic order,' and Bill G. wondered
what he could possibly mean by it, and I either missed the mass replies of the
group or I am the only one out here who didn't recognise that Bill G. was being
a touch naughty/disingenuous, and didn't really need an answer to his query.
Fools rush (belatedly) in, I guess, so here's a bit of Lacanian/Belseian grist
for the Godshalk mill, from Belsey's latest:
 
        By its attention to the signifier, and to the primacy of the symbolic
        in the construction of the world of meaning and difference, Lacan
        goes on to argue in 'The Signification of the Phallus', psychoanalysis
        gives a new account of the human condition, 'in that it is not only
        man who speaks, but that in man and through man *it* speaks (*ca
        parle*)' (p.284). 'It' here represents language, the symbolic order,
        the word as Law, which forms the human subject in its own image.
                                        (*Desire*, p.56)
 
The book is hot (well, fairly warm) off the press--the phrase is not quite so
recent.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.