Dear Jayne, Faith, and other contributors to the metaphor discussion,
I've been enjoying these mailings, and feel maybe I ought to come off
the observer pedestal. I'm writing my PhD thesis on the subject of
"Ecology and Postmodernity", and I have an interest in the ways that
poststructuralist theorists and other "postmodern" writers view the
ways that language produces meanings. Unfortunately, a lot of this
stuff is impenetrable if you're new to it, but there is a book by
Susan J. Hekman, called *Gender and Knowledge: Elements of a
Postmodern Feminism*, which gives a good accessible introduction.
She approaches the subject through the ways in which terms of
dualisms derive their meanings from what they are not, from what they
absent and exclude. Thus "culture" is not "nature", and similarly
for "matter" and "spirit", "male" and "female", and an indefinite
chain of dualisms that structure our thinking.
Jayne, you refered (19th March) to conflict resolution processed
based on "splitting the difference" or "finding common ground", and
suggested that they were doomed to failure. Larry Lohmann has an
article in the collection, *Global Ecology*, ed. by Wolfgang Sachs,
1993, called "Resisting Green Globalism", in which he argues that
different communities speak "different languages" , both literally
and metaphorically. Dominant cultures attempt to incorporate others
by incorporating them into a "universal" language - actually the
language of the dominator. One effect is loss of capacity for
surprise. Another is loss of sense of one's own bias. There can be
no "equal exchange", no "compromise" between groups with radically
different languages. (Such differences are "incommensurable", to use
a voguish word from social studies of science).
Though it may look like it, this is not relativism. It is a way of
affirming local knowledges ("situated knowledges" - Donna Haraway)
against the colonizer. Nevertheless, there is a strong tendency
among cultural theorists toward a "constructivist" consensus, that
equates world and language. I resist this tendency - and often feel
very lonely in doing so. One writer in cultural theory who has
questioned the appalling assumption,that all entities that humans can
possibly relate to are human constructs, is Donna Haraway, in an
article called: "The Promises of Monsters: a regenerative politics
for inappropriat(ed) others", in Lawrence Grossberg et al, *Cultural
Studies*, 1992.
I'm looking forward to more on metaphor.
Best wishes
Chris Drinkwater.
Chris Drinkwater.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 24 15:24:01 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:23:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Bertina Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Idealism/Materialism
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes thats what I had in mind. Though I was an English Major I still can
come across unclear when it comes to personal opinions I have and
especially emotional viewpoints. I do not try to offend, but maybe I have.
Excuse me.
Bertina Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
>
> The distinction between materialism and idealism that I think Bertina
> referred to is the split between those who think that change will come
> about through changing material/institutional relations versus those who
> think change will come about through changing people's "heads" or ideas.
> (Whew -- that's a run-on sentence!)
>
> In that sense, "idealism" does not mean necessarily having high ideals or
> lofty goals. In fact, both materialists and idealists can have a similar
> vision of the "end" they want to create. But, they disagree about "how"
> to "get there".
>
> Jayne
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 24 18:18:53 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:18:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/Spirituality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9503231635.A17728-0100000@netcom5>
Well, dear friends, I started this last night but heavy snow on the line
cut me off. My internet service just gave it back to me - so I think
I'll finish it and send it off even if it is a bit out of order in the
conversation now.
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams wrote:
I am an eco-feminist eclectic
> Neo-Pagan, a Witch, a magick user, a consciousness changer. I think,
> though you can shoot me if I am wrong, Coyote1, that Coyote is a Native
> American, but I am certain there is much more that she is. For both of
> us, our spirtuality is an inherent part of everything we do, there is no
> separation.
Shooting's not an option
Well, in fact - in order of blood quantum, I am Irish, Scottish and
Cherokee. In my spiritual practice I honor all my relations.
> Err, what is the difference between living things? Is one sort any more
> or less alive or more or less important? I don't think that anyone here
> who is a spiritual person sees one thing as more or less sacred or alive
> than anything else.
>
Here's one where even ~hard scientists~ can agree with us (whatever we
call ourselves, pagans, animists, you name it) about the
interconnectedness of everything on this earth. It truly is a living
organism, and as I said in an earlier discussion - I feel that every
breath one takes is a political act *and* a religious one.
I am not
separate from you because we are part of the whole. But just like the
different segments of my body have different functions, some asexual and
some sexual, different segments of the whole have different functions -
some asexual and some sexual and the sexual has two categories although
the line is not always clear especially in humans as to what is male and
what is female and how their power works in relation to the larger world
of power. I'm referring not to power-over, but inherent power that comes
from the primal center within each of us. For an example, as I was
taught - sage and sweetgrass are male, but everyone can use them as an
aid to prayer except menstruating women because they are at that time
under the influence of the moon our grandmother (oops! can you take
another metaphor?) and would do themselves no good using male power.
> > I find such opinions ludicrous and wrong. It is definitly seperatist in
> > viewpoint and does not welcome healthy relations.
I guess I'm a little fuddled here, are you all using separatist to
to mean those of us who do see and celebrate a difference between
individuals? I guess by gender and ethnicity at least? Then the failing
of that use of that word IMHO (thanks Jayne) is in accepting the
patriarchal judgement of different as implying a value heirarchy.
> > I believe in relativism and believe seperatist talk is exclusionary and
> > accomplishes little.
See above
Jacque
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
