Tutorial week 3 Flashcards
What are the most important characteristics of the intersectionality movement
according to Hill Collins?
- “focuses on the experiences of women of color, a devalued group not
just from the perspective of the academy, but also from society
overall” - “the needs of women of color cannot be met by monocategorical
thinking. (…) the disempowered identities that women of color
carried that positioned them within complex social inequalities
differently than white men or white women.” - “emphasis on relationality (…) it was not enough to have a common
enemy, rather, they had to figure out patterns of
interconnectedness” - “a social justice ethos that assumes that more comprehensive
analyses of social problems will yield more effective social actions
in response.
What is the goal of West with Genealogy of modern racism?
White supremacy also emerges from modern discourse. The powers behind this are subjectless– that is, they are the indirect products of the praxis of human subjects. In his text he wants to show how white supremacy is structurally embedded in western discourse
What 3 major historical processes determine modern discourse according to
West?
- The scientific revolution is significant because it
highlights two fundamental ideas: observation and evidence.
It signified the authority of science - The Cartesian transformation of philosophy: In this passage, the author is analyzing how Cartesian philosophy—particularly René Descartes’ emphasis on the thinking subject (“I think, therefore I am”) and representational thinking—has shaped modern discourse and scientific research. Here’s a breakdown of the main ideas and implications:
-
The Primacy of the Subject and Representation
- Primacy of the Subject: Descartes introduced the idea that the individual subject (the thinking, observing self) is at the center of knowledge. This places the “subject”—the observer or thinker—as the primary source of knowledge and understanding.
- Preeminence of Representation: According to Cartesian philosophy, knowledge is built upon mental representations, or “copies,” of reality. This means that humans understand the world through representations or images of objects, which are assumed to correspond to the real world. This model encourages the belief that human knowledge can objectively mirror or replicate reality.
-
Scientific Research and “True Copies” of Reality
- In modern science, influenced by Cartesian thinking, research is not just a tool for engaging with reality but is thought to produce “true copies” of it—objective, accurate representations of the world. This implies a confidence in science’s ability to access reality as it truly is, separate from subjective bias.
- Objectification and Manipulation: This “copy” or representation of reality, once produced, becomes something to be manipulated and controlled. With reality reduced to representations, it can be managed as an object, treated almost like data to be shaped, predicted, or analyzed. This is where Cartesian dualism (the separation of mind and matter) reinforces the idea that humans, as subjects, can dominate the material world, or “objects.”
-
Heidegger’s Critique of Cartesian Research
- Calculation and Control: Martin Heidegger critiques this approach by arguing that Cartesian-inspired research transforms the world into something calculable and controllable. It objectifies nature and history, treating them as entities that can be “at our disposal”—something to be predicted, calculated, and controlled either as future probabilities or as past data.
- Objectification of Nature and History: In this sense, nature and history lose their intrinsic meaning and become mere objects of “expository representation,” meaning they are displayed and analyzed according to human interests and methods. This reduces complex, dynamic realities to simplified, predictable models, which can limit the depth of human understanding and respect for the world as it is.
Summary
This passage reflects on how Cartesian philosophy has shaped modern scientific discourse by prioritizing the knowing subject and representational thinking. Scientific research, influenced by these ideas, attempts to create “true copies” of reality, turning nature and history into objects that can be calculated and controlled. Heidegger’s critique suggests that this approach risks reducing the richness of reality to something that is merely manipulated, stripping it of deeper meaning and value.
- The classical revival “infuses Greek ocular metaphors and classical ideas of beauty,
proportion, and moderation into the beginnings of modern discourse,” together with
Cartesian philosophy leading to an “epistemological model of intellect inspecting
entities modeled on retinal images”
The Emergence of Modern Racism: The First Stage
Development of normative gaze:
- an ideal from which to order and compare observations. This ideal was drawn primarily from classical aesthetic values
- These norms were consciously projected and promoted by many
influential Enlightenment writers, and therefore they provided an acceptable authority for
the idea of white supremacy, an acceptable authority that was closely linked with the major authority on truth and knowledge in the modern world.
- The principal aim of natural history is to observe, compare, measure, and order animals and human bodies (or classes of animals and human bodies) based on visible, especially physical, characteristics –>The genealogy of racism in the
modern West is inseparable from the appearance of the classificatory category of race in natural history
The Emergence of Modern Racism: The Second Stage
The second stage of the emergence of the idea of white supremacy
as an object of modern discourse primarily occurred in the rise of
phrenology (the reading of skulls) and physiognomy (the reading of
faces
This new disci
pline linked particular visible characteristics of human bodies, espe
cially those of the face, to the character and capacities of human beings. the classical ideals of beauty, proportion, and moderation regulated the classifying and ranking of groups of human bodies. In short, physiognomy brought the “normative gaze” into
daylight.
Restrictive Powers in
Modern Discourse
A major example of the way in which the restrictive powers of modern
discourse delimit theoretical alternatives and strategic options in regard
to the idea of white supremacy is seen in writings of radical environ
mentalists of the period - those one would expect to be open to the idea
of black equality in beauty, culture, and intellectual capacity. Yet even
these progressive antislavery advocates remain captive to the “norma
tive gaze.”
Did racial prejudice exist in classical antiquity?
Yes, but: the crucial
difference seems to be that racial differences were justified on cultural
grounds in classical antiquity, whereas at the inception of modern dis
course, racial differences are often grounded in nature, that is, ontology
and later biology.
The Emergence of Modern Racism:
Inevitable or Contingent?
The emergence of the idea of white supremacy as an object
of modern discourse seems contingent, in that there was no iron neces
sity at work in the complex configuration of metaphors, notions, cat
egories, and norms that produce and promote this idea
What are Seyla Benhabib’s three thesis? What are their weak and
strong versions?
The Death of Man: The idea that the human subject is not a self-contained, rational individual, but is shaped by historical, social, and linguistic contexts.
Weak Version: A subject is situated within history, social practices, and language, but still retains some agency and coherence.
Strong Version: The subject is reduced to nothing more than an effect of power and discourse, with no coherence or agency.
The Death of History: The rejection of grand metanarratives about historical progress.
Weak Version: Rejects grand narratives but allows for some smaller-scale historical accounts, including those that can explain gender subordination.
Strong Version: Rejects all historical narratives, even those that might be necessary to explain subordination and oppression.
The Death of Metaphysics: The rejection of any grand claims to universal truth or the foundational grounds of reality.
Weak Version: Rejects overly ambitious claims to universal truth, a position widely accepted in modern philosophy.
Strong Version: Undermines the very possibility of philosophy and social critique itself, which Benhabib argues is a problem for feminist theory.
Fraser reconstructs the debate between Benhabib and Butler as being about the difference between critical theory and poststructuralism. What is this difference?
Critical theory (Benhabib) focuses on emancipation, justice, and the normative potential of social critique, emphasizing that the situated subject can still retain agency for critical reflection.
Poststructuralism (Butler) focuses on deconstructing the subject and identity, critiquing how power and discourse construct the subject, and rejecting grand theories of justice in favor of localized critiques.
According to Fraser there is a false anti-thesis between these two camps. Rather there are medium strength versions of Benhabib’s weak/strong
theses possible. How?
Antithesis: keeping the weak version with critique without progressing to strong version
Critical theory (weak) and postmodernism (strong) are not opposite but can be united (Fraser)
What are the ‘implications of the death of man thesis for thinking
about agency and critique’?
Challenging the notion of a subject also challenges notions of agency and critique: if there is no subject, can there be critique?
Narrative agency (Benhabib) vs integrative project (Fraser)
In essence, narrative agency deals with how individuals shape and understand their identities within social contexts, while the integrative project works at a broader, theoretical level to reconcile views on power, autonomy, and identity formation.
Two aims of integrative project
First: intervening in debates, challenging superficial misunder
standings on both sides and developing readings of both thinkers that show there to be more middle ground between them than is typically assumed
Second: to use this interpretive recasting to rethink the relationship
between subjection and autonomy, in a way that allows us to understand individuals as both
constituted as subjects through relations of power and yet still capable of a kind of situated critical reflection that deserves to be called autonomy
