wesley david cecil
wcecil at ucs.indiana.edu
Sat Nov 5 20:46:14 MST 1994
On Fri, 4 Nov 1994, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Wes, someone might almost think she was talking with a normal person in a
> shared language and then you produce a sentence like the following:
> > For my part, I am interested in question of how materiality is
> > figured in the two discourses since both often rely heavily on issues of
> > materiality to ground various arguments.
> Materiality? Discourses? Materiality being figured in discourses? You got
> me beat. How IS the materiality figured in the two discourses, and can you
> whistle me a few bars so I can learn the tune? Less flippantly, what are
> you talking about?
Well, not wishing to make any particular claim to normalcy, what I meant
in this rather compressed passage is that much feminism appeals to the
actual body and bodily experiences to ground arguments and thus contains
an implicit or explicit theory of materialism(of what material reality is
constituted and how we apprehend this reality). Similarly, Marxism in
its many forms has spent a great deal of time on the material basis of
reality --means and modes of production determining social interraction
that kindoff thing-- and thus also presents multitude generally but not
always explicit theories of what constitutes materiality. Now, my
problem is that in the few articles I have read -- 5 or 6 -- that claim
to be Marxist/Feminist it is assumed that marxist materialism is in
perfect accord with Feminist notions of materialism although such is not
necessarily the case(I will send you an example when I am in my office).
So the question of how the material is figured-- that is presented in an
essay -- is very interesting to me.
> --Justin Schwartz
More information about the Marxism