From: "Stuart Elden" <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:11:31 -0000
Thanks for posting this. I think your 'over simplifies and misses the point'
is far far too generous. Nussbaum gets Butler wrong. Very wrong. Why?
Either 1) she didn't understand it, but thought she did
or 2) she did understand it, but felt better able to take on this version
or 3) she did understand it, but saw a virtue in misconstruing it (so to
make the point about bad writing stronger).
Any other options?
She also betrays a complete lack of knowledge of Althusser, grammar,
structuralism, Gramsci, Foucault, etc.
But I thought Nussbaum was an Aristotle scholar (and a good one). Why is she
>>>rewrite of Butler's entry in the Bad Writing contest. For those who have
>>>deleted Butler's entry, it follows:
>>>"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to
>>>structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of
>>>hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence,
>>>and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking
>>>of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that
>>>takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the
>>>insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a
>>>conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and
>>>of the rearticulation of power."
>>>"Marxist accounts, focusing on capital as the central force structuring
>>>social relations, depicted the operations of that force as everywhere
>>>uniform. By contrast, Althusserian accounts, focusing on power,
>>>see the operations of that force as variegated and as shifting over