r/LeftWithoutEdge • u/____joew____ • Jul 09 '24
Analysis/Theory Suggestions for analytical feminists?
I went to a huge left-leaning school and was exposed to a lot of critical theory there. I have a big ideological hurdle there, though, because I really dislike post-modern / post-structuralist / continental philosophy rejection of science. A lot of what I read -- actually, basically all of it -- perusing socialist or feminist theory, writing on film especially, relies on rhetorical appeals to the readers rather than direct evidence.
For example, Clover's paper on slasher films refers to the power of the phallus being transferred between the slasher and the "final girl" masculinizing her. I can jive with that as an exploration of the symbolism, but she takes it further and makes truth claims about the interior viewing experience of male viewers that no one could possibly really know. And I suspect a big part of this is the intellectual legacy of Freud and Marxist psychoanalysis seeping its way through. Obviously, reading with an intersectional lens makes this difficult (many popular theorists disclaim the objectivity of white male lead science yet do not question their own position as class-unaware upper class white women. And the treatment of transgender issues in the 70s and 80s is, well, unfortunate. I don't mean that as a blanket statement).
Really the issue is that I fall firmly on the side of Chomsky in the Chomsky-Foucault debate. The intellectual legacy of a lot of these people is about obscuritanism. If they use data or cite their sources, it is usually cherry-picked and they take their conclusions way too far (a la Malcolm Gladwell).
I appreciate bell hooks (I can look past most of her treatment of homosexuality which I find lacking in some regards). I like her and Chomsky because they both to some degree emphasize critical thinking (although in very different spheres and contexts). I really love how open she was, how much she promoted love and radical acceptance, and how willing she was to self-criticize and examine her own behavior ("There was a time when I would often ask the man in my life to tell me his feelings. And yet when he began to speak, I would either interrupt or silence him by crying, sending him the message that his feelings were too heavy for anyone to bear, so it was best if he kept them to himself.") Which is really shocking, honestly, in a leftist space because most of what I see and read (not from feminists, everybody) is basically innoculating one's self from internalizing the things they're saying, or only in very general terms admitting their own role in upholding a power structure (eg a white person saying "white people have xyz privilege" instead of "I have xyz privilege").
So what I am asking for is kind of 3 fold:
a) any leftist philosophers working in analytical philosophy,
b) feminist writers in the tradition of bell hooks or analytical philosophy,
c) writers who talk about radical acceptance and compassion?
I guess I might have no idea what analytical philosophy is. But any all suggestions for reading are welcome.
4
u/Max1461 Jul 09 '24
It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted for a thoughtful and measured post liked this, just because you're critiquing something that people like and looking for alternatives. Whatever happened to "ruthless critique of everything existing"! I guess it doesn't apply to everyone's favorite continentals...
5
5
u/sailorjupiter28titan Jul 10 '24
Naomi Klein and Angela Davis are my go to.
2
1
u/peterpansdiary Jul 09 '24
I can only challenge your conceptions about poststructuralism sadly, but I am not sure this is the right thread. I just don't think anti-scientism is an issue, it's incredibly exaggerated.
2
u/____joew____ Jul 09 '24
It's not really anti-scientism that's my main issue. I don't have an issue with pointing out the biases in science; I have an issue with the response to that basically being, "we can be as biased as we like in return". A lot of theorists -- writing in English in the US, at least --basically say whatever they want in academic language that has no analytical substance whatsoever. It relies on the preconceived notions, not data or substantive evidence, just implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) telling the reader "this is so obvious anyone can see it, and anyone who questions that is a fascist/liar". It just seems to rely on the language and interpretations of a religion, not a theory. The paradox of the believer is "that the apostle, who demands faith, can give no evidence but his own testimony". That's kinda what we're asked to do when theorists pre-suppose all these structures that we can't see or test. I'm not saying that as a scientism-nut. I mean that in the belief that justified belief requires trying to root out our own biases. And when theorists conflict, there is no mechanism to analyze which is better than appealing to our biases or pathos. Science, math, have answers for that. It's different when analyzing a book or movie -- inherently up to interpretation -- than when it enters the political sphere and demands belief or action (although that is rarely actualized).
2
u/peterpansdiary Jul 09 '24
I just think the thinkers are very overhyped. It's normal when they don't live to the expectations. They are basically concept makers and it shouldn't require clear proofs but implicitness is better for me. I like them for "thinking outside the box" but I can understand if it feels like "preaching Gospel" to you especially by followers.
3
u/____joew____ Jul 09 '24
To me, the implicitness is where the bias lives and thrives. I think that's quite clear. I think thinking out of the box should include evidence we can directly support with empiricism.
A practical reason for discounting continental philosophers is that it's so easy to listen, internalize, and ignore their philosophy. If these ideas worked, then we would have seen capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, etc, dim during the period of their project. Maybe you can make the case patriarchy has weakened but capitalism has run the world to the ground harder and harder. Baudrillard said the 90s felt unreal -- the 20s have wrapped themselves around that unreality a dozen times over.
But really, my issue is a simple philosophical hurdle. Post structuralism denies positivism, but the only alternative they offer -- if they offer -- is on the same ontological position as religion.
2
u/peterpansdiary Jul 10 '24
(Sorry if I am taking this conversation long, just want to make a point)
we would have seen them dim
That's a valid point. I just want to personally say that unless it benefits you such as your job or your social circle, don't be overtly enthusiastic. Human "history" is "in place" since 10-12 thousand years and we haven't seen a particularly morally good "history". There isn't an inherent reason to blame such a long period on anything such as West or strict hierarchical structures. I had a "naivety" problem for a very long time and I have basically used all my resources on intellectuality while being neurodivergent and I am at a likely point of failure in my life. In short, don't be naive =) we are just a stepping stone of history.
2
1
6
u/chris_philos anarcho-syndicalist aspiring for communism Jul 09 '24
You can find them under the auspices of neo-republicanism, theorists of structural injustice, and proponents of workplace democracy, people like Sally Haslanger, G. A, Cohen, Phillip Pettit, and Elizabeth Anderson.