empty words, more words and more words. I'm asking for concrete proposals, not abstractions about xyz culture. What form will this feminin culture take? A white one? one based on ressentiment?
The concrete proposals are to encourage men to embrace femininity and stop telling them that they can't act feminine and recognize such prohibitions as toxic masculinity. Another part is to listen to women, and give them a platform, and try to give them what they want in your own work. I'm an artist and philosopher, dude, a literary critic if anything, I admit I'm not a full-blown political scientist. I'm just trying to express my reading of Butler, I don't have any policy ideas or anything.
Here's an example of feminine culture, joshi pro wrestling. More violent than male pro wrestling and not white at all.
Except I didn't say that activism was constrained by political subjectivity (which would mean I would be saying activism is insufficiently political.) I said activism possesses an understanding which is constricted by political subjectivity, I.E: that activism is precisely too political, that it is constrained within the political sphere because of its hyperpoliticisation, and cannot therefore think in terms of the non-political. I.E: activism seeks to interpret the world, the point, however, is to cognise how the world understands and interprets itself.
I think activism aims to change the world, which is what Marx said was the point. I don't understand your point about cognition, if you're proposing we should accept some sort of cognitive science, I will say that new research in cognitive science uses Butler's theories. Butler's theory draws heavily from phenomenology which is widely regarded as compatible with cogntive science. Furthermore, Butler's theory is meant to be cognitive, it describes our real experience of how society understands and interprets identity. Hers is a limited theory, yes, but that doesn't invalidate it.
But Butler, like Foucault, thinks everything is political, which mystifies politics to such a degree that all meanings of the political process are obfuscated.
Butler and Foucault do research immanent to the social systems they describe. You're right, they don't transcend the limits of a particular historical era of society. They don't need to. We can study politics without using apolitical terms. Why would we need some sort of apolitical scientific point of view to understand Butler's insights into gender identity? Do you even care about gender identity, bro?????
Althusserian structuralisms main defect is to see the social relations as technical, and science possessing an objective dimension above that of class society. It is, however, the very historicism that Marx takes from Hegel, something Althusser denies, and Foucault is shaped by this erronious interpretation. Hence the process of discourse analysis becomes a question of domination. But capital is a relation of force, not a relation of strict domination, killing your oppressors means nothing if said social relations persist. It is why all ideologies under capitalism sooner or later gravitate to liberalism, (especially and including leftist and anarchist ones) precisely because capitalism designates a specific central political sphere, that being the state.
I don't understand how this is a criticism of Foucault or Butler. If you're saying they don't critique capital, you're right, but that's irrelevant to their arguments. I don't understand why you think it's a defect for Althusser to argue that objective science is possible. Nor do I understand how Althusser's erroneous interpretation influenced Foucault.
If indeed you and Butler are such trenchant critics of the pseudo-revolutionary subject, then why do you participate in a discourse which reifies it? The feminin culture you speak of is also indelibly shaped by capitalist rationality, it does not exist orthogonal to it. In fact, this idea of the feminin being intuitive and less about hyper instrumental rationality at its core capitulates to misogyny, by reinstating the gendered divisions of feudalistic society. Girlboss is an absolute advance on this, and you know it.
The idea that accepting sexual difference reinforces sexist gender divisions is an idea that simply ignores the unique character of the feminine and blots out the Other. Remember, Butler follows Foucault's claim that myriad power-relations influence the subject. The masculine Same is this pseudo-revolutionary subject. The feminine Other is an alternative to capitalism. Sure, capitalism influences the feminine. Capitalism influences everything. But I don't see how anyone has reified the subject here.
Are you saying girlbosses are good or bad? I thought they just reproduced capitalist conditions and were bad.