[Peace-discuss] Fraser on Polanyi

[David Green]

Last night at Levis Faculty Center, renowned political/feminist philosopher 
Nancy Fraser offered an update of Karl Polanyi's famous and important work, The 
Great Transformation. Polanyi's book (1944)described the relationship between 
marketization and social protections (relationships, solidarity) subsequent to 
the advent of capitalism, focusing on England before and during the Industrial 
Revolution. To these two fundamental sociological concepts, Fraser adds that of 
"emancipation."

Fraser is of course concerned about neoliberalism, but also studiously and 
pointedly avoids "economism," or economic determinism (of course, identified 
with Marxism). She is also concerned that the promotion and revitalization of 
"social protections" will promote reaction--especially in relation to the rights 
of women, and perhaps other newly-liberated groups. She argues that by bringing 
the notion of "emancipation" into this equation, we can better understand the 
ups and downs of capitalism and the welfare state, while of course avoiding 
things like fascism and, presumably, teapartyism.

Fraser's argument is quite abstract, but to me clear. We now have a three-legged 
stool of individual rights and economic/social institutions, in which each leg 
is conveniently and elegantly used to critique and modify the excesses and 
potentials of the other two. It promotes a kind of positive, progressive, 
controlled but dynamic equilibrium, presumably with the help of philospher 
kings--and I don't say that disparigingly, in and of itself.

Nevertheless, my concerns have, as usual, to do with Fraser's conventional 
rejection of "economism," which softens and compromises her critique of 
neoliberalism; and her implicit promotion of "identity politics" under the guise 
of emancipation, which she does not assertively define in any other context. I 
don't find any of this very satisfying as a political program, even aside from 
its academic nature.

Fraser began her talk with a veiled reference to current events in the Middle 
East, saying that for the first time in 20 years, we can begin to think in 
global and fundamental terms about political transformation. She claims that for 
the past two decades (that is, since the fall of the Soviet Union), various 
academic approaches have been fragmented and limited in scope. Maybe that's 
true, especially in academia, but why? For some, the answer obviously lies with 
the fashions of postmodernism and identity politics.

Fraser claims that she is at the forefront of a more fundamental and 
thoroughgoing approach to social transformation, now urgent because of 
neoliberalism and the Middle East, and that her critique of Polanyi couldn't be 
more timely. Perhaps so, but I'm not sure it's the right critique. It's not fair 
to criticize academics for doing what they're supposed to do, which is to 
conceputalize and theorize. But ultimately, such work must be relevant and 
useful in relation to political behavior. With all due respect to Fraser's 
careful and serious work, for me it doesn't resonate as revealing our 
predicament in necessarily dire and urgent terms, or in providing a sound and 
inspiring basis for political strategy.

DG


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110301/5ec30567/attachment.html>