[Peace-discuss] Fraser on Polanyi

[David Green]

The point is, you shouldn't have to be in "the field," but just have some basic 
lexicon. I was actually more offended by the lengthy introduction to the 
introducer, which seemed almost a parody of academic behavior. Perhaps Professor 
Gilles was appropriately embarrassed by it.



________________________________
From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 10:57:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fraser on Polanyi

David, 

Glad to read your response to Fraser's talk. I found it lacked concreteness, 
needed specific examples to delineate what the problems actually are—in other 
words was overly vague.. Also, overly wordy for thoughts that could have been 
expressed more sharply. The one thing I got out of the talk was that perhaps I 
should read Polanyi. Is he better? I thought her talk was an academic mishmash, 
and essentially worthless. But the again I'm outsde the field. 

Perhaps the woman who introduced Fraser set the tone, going on tediously and 
gushingly about  Frasers works/insights. It reminded me of a French habit of 
introducing a music performer, telling the audience how wonderful the performer 
is before the latter has a chance to reveal his/her talent, or otherwise, to the 
audience. I knew I was in, then, for a problematic evening. 

Anyway, I'm glad she was clear to you. I kept asking myself: Where's the meat?

--mkb


On Mar 1, 2011, at 10:11 AM, David Green wrote:

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
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110301/1e90b774/attachment.html>