Hell wrote, and Yael responded: "Hell said: >It depends entirely on the motives of the person involved. If Bob is >choosing between zucchini and summer squash on the basis of where it was >picked, and whether the workers picking the vegetables have been taken >advantage of etc., etc. then yes, the choice is political. But if he's >choosing simply on the basis of flavour, ie. he prefers zucchini to squash, >and ignores those other factors, then that choice has no political motive >whatsoever. It's simply a matter of taste.
It may not have a political MOTIVE but it does have political implications and CONSEQUENCES. so even though it is a very personal act, it has broader ramifications. if anyone chooses to think that their actions have no implications, that simple and basic choices are only their own personal and individual choices, they are making a choice right there, as far as i am concerned, to *ignore* the ramifications of their actions." Me now: I agree with what I remember to be Hell's first line, that the personal CAN be political, but also agree with Yael that it very often is. Namely, a decision not become informed about whether there are political implications in choosing one vegetable over another IS a political decision, as is the deicision to focus on taste to the exclusion of political implications. IMHO. I remember, as a graduate student in English literature, a battle royale in the Academy over the use of "political" analyses in interpreting literature. Those on the "no politics" side held that the Text Almighty was a sort of artifact in and of itself, and should be studied, as much as possible, free of considering such "extraneous" matters as the social conditions under which it was written, or the subtle (or not so subtle) biases of the author. Those in the other camp believed that to hold that a Text was somehow separate from political concerns or analyses was simply to deny reality: saying this was so did not make it so. Such an unquestioning separation in the mind of the reader might even have the effect of continuing to prop up the dominant power structures that may have influenced the work. Can you guess which camp I was in? As with all things, there is a happy medium here. The enjoyment of good literature IS an aesthetic experience, removed, on at least some levels, from any social or political concerns. And to ignore those concerns is, in my opinion, not to fully appreciate the work. I know no one here before me was saying anything about the study and interpretation of English literature. But some of this discussion has taken me back to those days, and those battles. Perhaps the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mary P.
