>Another walk on the wild side. Three epigraphs from Judith Butler's Bodies >that Matter: > >"Why should our bodies end at the skin, or include at best other beings >encapsulated by skin?" - Donna Haraway Anyone who has any serious knowledge of martial arts should have no trouble whatsoever with this sentence. Of course, notice that understanding it requires a certain (extensive) *practice*, without which it appears to be nonsense. The practice does not only make sense of the statement, it makes it "performative." > >"If on really thinks about the body as such, there is no possible outline >of the body as such. There are thinking os the systematicity of the body, >there are value codings of the body. The body, as such, cannot be thought, >and I cannot approach it." - Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Out of context, I can't parse this grammar. The one time I heard Spivak speak, I found her unintelligible. (I've never read her work.) > >"There is no nature, only the efects of nature: denaturalization or >naturalization." - Jacques Derrida Out of context this could mean almost anything. (Context is everything, which should be obvious to Marxists. Notice that context just means, "with text," i.e. the core of post-modern understanding.) >This book, which I've only begun to sample, has a blurb from Margaret >Whitford of the University of London that claims that it explores "gender >as iteration"; another, from Elizabeth Grosz of Monash U, says that it >explores "the politically transgressive potential of gender >performativity." What's the problem with these remarks? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
