[Reader-list] Theoretical Correctness : From Habermas to Leslie Green

[inder salim]

in continuation to the performance of an undertrail throwing shit on
the Judge....


1.
The flowers in the lawn were waiting for a surprise, when I went in as
Aratud's double, a body
without organs, but they saw me not. Part of me was farts,  which
rubbed the olfactory nerves of guard's noses  at the gate. Whatever
turned their faces to other side, I found a suitable space to move in,
to enter, to push the door with text at the top: Pradhan Mantri ( PM).

He was not there, but I saw a table, a miniature flag, a couple of
pens, a chair with a table glass, a bouquet, a painting by the
country's most expensive artist.

I got up slowly and sat on the table with a table glass which
reflected back, my trousers torn from behind. I pushed a little, and
there it was: a lump of shit. I was the proud mother of a baby without
organs. A  rebel baby who will speak to the nation on Television
tomorrow.

2.
Shit, in 1947 they forgot. We were told that the surgeons of the
partition forgot to remove a
scissor a towel in the abdomen of the lady who was delivering the
multi-limbed babies with two different names. It was shitty, in fact
less than shit. Even shit needs a smooth passage, but they blocked it,
and now it is shit of a history of bandages, blood and Betadine. They
never cared, and their children too never cared to go deeper. Her body
is in pain, subsequently damaging her other organs too.

3.
Sallam-alikum Mohammad Joo, You don't recognize me, but I can't forget
your serene and tall bearded graceful being, a Christian god like. You
used to pull a raidee/thailee (cart ) full of shit on the Highway. You
perhaps remember, that a short cut to our school through your mohalla
(Vatal Mohalla: Dalit Colony) was full of big blue bees, bushes and a
Vattal- graveyard( Dalit Graveyard ). I cant forget that… you alone,
pulling that cart on the J&K Highway near Bijbehara: cart full of shit
of the other.

4.
' For the unbrahmin accent of the little girl
Even Saraswati wouldn't be able to write its phonetics.'  (Rama Rao-Poet Telgu )

This area of the body contains shit. The universal Brahmin said to
himself. The Muladhar chakra ( the cycle of root ) borrows the smell
of shit, mixes it with red of the blood. The warm orange and yellow
thing at this point writes inwardly: GOD. Outside, the cold yellow and
orange word between two stones on the river bank next to a honey bee
on the flower is desire: a reality. And this area of my body near the
throat which looks bluish as one looks at it from the moon is distant
from where this Brahmin yearns to be. Between my eye brows, that
violet and white spinning light is madness. That journey from the
bottom of spine is incapable to decipher his ' I' or the space that
locates beyond 'I' .The sound OM, goes out to see stars, the sun, the
moon, returns back as silence. Nothing, but nothing is the curx. There
is no language. But the Brahmincal society has one…

5.
"Who is this man called M.F.Hussain who loves to buy expensive cars".
"My son" quickly I replied to my son's innocent question.  Ha, Ha, Ha,
laughed my son, who loves to upload expensive cars on my desktop.
Needless to say, that I love him, so I have no choice but to live with
this shit.








On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM, ARNAB CHATTERJEE
<apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Inder,
>            Thank you for this brilliant response. I
>  shall soon post my response to it.
>  Till then
>  arnab
>
>
>
>  --- inder salim <indersalim at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > nor can we gain knowledge of any feeling by
>  > introspection, the
>  > feeling being completely veiled from introspection,
>  > for the very
>  > reason that it is our immediate consciousness.
>  > Possibly this curious
>  > truth was what Emerson was trying to grasp — but
>  > if so, pretty
>  > unsuccessfully — when he wrote the lines,
>  >
>  > The old Sphinx bit her thick lip —
>  > Said, »Who taught thee me to name?
>  > I am thy spirit, yoke-fellow,
>  > Of thine eye I am eyebeam.
>  > »Thou art the unanswered question;
>  > Couldst see thy proper eye,
>  > Always it asketh, asketh;
>  > And each answer is a lie.«  )
>  > Needless to say that Aranab is truly a Muse on the
>  > List, and Vivek has
>  > all the reasons to agree with and celebrate.
>  > Today is a Language day, and today, after  reading
>  > your piece 'on
>  > feelings', i believe a lot of
>  >
>  > people ( muses )  on the list would agree that to
>  > say a thing one
>  > needs a little more than a good arrangement of
>  > words…. So influenced,
>  > that I want to write a poem to talk further on that,
>  > but that too
>  > happens, it may happen or not, who knows. And even
>  > if it happens, it
>  > may be less than a simple prose piece. What to do ?
>  > Given the nature of complexity, it is not surprising
>  > that 'muses'
>  > always try to find it difficult to put full stop on
>  > their outbursts.
>  > On the contrary, some one who is less than a muse,
>  > always finds it
>  > easy to put the thought in words, crisply, usually
>  > to a lethal effect.
>  >  But who is less than a Muse ?  None again. I see
>  > from my balcony,
>  > domestic  sparrows and crows driving away colourful
>  > birds and
>  > koels, which often irritates me, but I then educate
>  > my choices.
>  > As one can see, I am theoretically correct, but
>  > politically incorrect.
>  > Who is theoretically 'a
>  >
>  > not-muse' None. But I have found the art of living
>  > with paradoxes and
>  > so may be I am wrong,  but who really cares about
>  > the truth. Not only
>  > Arnab but there is a river of text in the world that
>  > speaks about the
>  > non-existence of truth, and yet that truth…. In
>  > fact it must be there
>  > simply, but as we know, we don't have the necessary
>  > tools at our
>  > disposal to convey it accurately. We are simply
>  > without the absolute.
>  > But to say that even, Peirce rightly uses the
>  > expression , 'pretty
>  > unsuccessfully' while quoting a gem like Emerson
>  > stanza.
>  > If I the essay by Arnab has that quality of bringing
>  > theatre closer to
>  > philosophy, as we see how Derrida while talking
>  > about deconstruction
>  > as performativity, then  then it becomes a little
>  > easier than
>  > otherwise.
>  >
>  > First  I quote : Deconstruction is a theory that
>  > posits that
>  > signifiers and signifieds are
>  >
>  > continually breaking apart and reattaching in new
>  > combinations, indeed
>  > there is no fixed distinction between  signifier and
>  > signified. The
>  > deconstruction process is not only infinite but also
>  > somehow circular.
>  > Signified keeps
>  > transforming into sigfnifiers and vice versa, and
>  > you never arrive at
>  > a final sign that is not a
>  > signifier itself. Deconstruction is not simply a
>  > strategic reversal of
>  > categories.
>  > Deconstruction is an attempt to dismantle the logic
>  > by which a
>  > particular system of thought is grounded as well as
>  > how a whole system
>  > of political situation and social control maintains
>  > its force.
>  > Deconstruction is a theme of the absent centre. The
>  > post-modern
>  > experience is widely held to stem from a profound
>  > sense of ontological
>  > uncertainty.
>  >
>  > For Judith Butler performative is understood as a
>  > stylized repetition
>  > of acts that like Derridian citation—" always a
>  > reiteration of a norm
>  > or set of norms, which means that the act that one
>  > does , the act that
>  > one performs it, in a sense, an act that has been
>  > going on before one
>  > arrived on the scene.So in that sense, we are
>  > condemned to repeat to
>  > say and act what has been going on before we arrived
>  > on the scene. We
>  > can say ' theoritically incorrect' as well, because
>  > it was uttered
>  > before as well, and only some performativity can mix
>  > its theory and
>  > practice together, to unleash that
>  > unpridictable....Thus what was not
>  > uttered too can get its wings to contribute to " The
>  > Architecture of
>  > Deconstruction"
>  >
>  > Here, I am writing all this, not because people
>  > don't know, but to
>  > repeat, and repeat it like a
>  > performance, to see it again, to realize it again. I
>  > shall do it
>  > again, and that I guess is the job of a reasonable
>  > muse. I am trying
>  > to be one.
>  > In the above quoted passage from Derrida, there is a
>  > phrase '
>  > ontological uncertainty'. I  hope Arnab can give us
>  > more on that  than
>  > I can….. I remember, that how  surrealists once
>  > used a term ' critical
>  > paranoia: a state of mind that brings madness closer
>  > to consciousness
>  > without falling into its abyss.
>  >
>  > So, I guess one has to keep on talking about all the
>  > interesting
>  > things and also uninteresting things. We really
>  > don't know how to
>  > decipher the ontology of our uncertainties. They
>  > were not
>  > uncertainties in the first place if we know  them,
>  > and that is why I
>  > am not even writing about that
>  > .
>  > For example, the debate on sexuality which Aranab
>  > initiated around a
>  > post on Taslima. I once  read a line " Sexuality is
>  > not innate but a
>  > product " and I thought that I know enough about the
>  > word sexuality
>  > and its politics etc,  but from feminist readings I
>  > am too narrowly
>  > positioned on the discourse on sexuality. Similarly
>  > about politics, I
>  > looks it is dead, but it is not. May I am dead or
>  > may be not kind of
>  > thing…
>  >
>  >  The question is really about 'the present'  which
>  > encompasses all the
>  > thought in one go, which somehow ejects out our
>  > beings from the
>  > tightly held structures, not only of  languages, but
>  > other contrived
>  > corridors of thinking.  We can move from written
>  > word to oral and come
>  > back to photography. From there we can move to
>  > painting, and then do
>  > some theatre. From there we can reflect a piece on
>  > the Sarai reader
>  > list, and wash our socks. Then go to bazaar to buy
>  > some vegetables and
>  > pay the telephone bill. The list is long, as long as
>  > life itself,  and
>  > that is how it is….
>  >
>  > Before, coming back to Taslima, I think of Teesta.
>  > When I heard about
>  > Teesta, I got a carpenter's call who had this
>  > Pakeeza ringtone in a
>  > mobile. Inhee Logoon nay… sipayan say poocho,  jis
>  > nay bazarya mein
>  > cheena dupta mera.  ( These are the people who
>  > snatched my head scarf…
>  > Don't ask me, ask the policeman who snatched my
>  > headscarf in the
>  > market ) song of a prostitute in the film.
>  >
>  > Some one is there who provoked CJI, otherwise a lot
>  > of such stuff gets
>  > published in the country. That is that, but the fact
>  > has come to the
>  > fore, that the  law can not compromise on the
>  > dissent when it comes to
>  > direct criticism of law itself. That is the message.
>  > Now if someone
>  > questions about the delayed justice in India, or
>  > about the millions of
>  > pending cases then what will be his excuse,
>  > except that judiciary is structurally inadequate and
>  > only some quick
>  > governmental remedy can save the judiciary from
>  > committing mistakes
>  > unwittingly.
>  >
>  > Some 17 or 18 years back I read in newspaper that
>  > how an under trail
>  > threw his shit ( ) on the face of a judge because he
>  > was poor and was
>  > languishing in jail for years.
>  > His name was Rakesh. I had that paper cutting
>  > preserved somewhere, I
>  > must find it. That was performance. What do you
>  > think?
>  >
>  > With love and regards
>  > indersalim
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, ARNAB CHATTERJEE
>  > <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Dear Shuddha and others,
>  > >                                     Your question
>  > in
>  > > resonse to my Beyond : Taslima's mimesis and
>  > feminist
>  > > Theory(what on earth is  'theoretically
>  > incorrect'?
>  > >  Can theory be 'correct' or 'incorrect'?) is
>  > > intriguing, interesting and enabling  enough so
>  > much
>  > > so that I might just begin by a provocative
>  > counter
>  > > question: if all theories are correct and  no
>  > theory
>  > > is incorrect or false, then   the theory of error
>  > > itself is   erroneous and so on and so forth. In
>  > fact
>  > > you are not keen to recognize that the theory of
>  > truth
>  > > itself might not be true. When we argue we are
>  > > actually into debating this contrary correctness
>  > and
>  > > determined by the "force of the better argument"
>  > often
>  > > there could be just one true correct answer. This
>  > > apart there are a few didactic ruses for me by
>  > which
>  > > my usage, purposively, could be meant : I'll urge
>  > that
>  > >  the current assumptions in sexual harassment
>  > > discourse --  in which tactile sense data of
>  > touching
>  > > and the question of sexual feeling is absolutely
>  > > expelled or rooted out ( except the revolting
>  > feeling
>  > > ( feeling still) of the respondent) to make a
>  > > normative point, be contrasted with the
>  > theoretical
>  > > discussion of feeling and here I give  a precise
>  > > reference instead of just citing a high sounding
>  > > phrase like  "phenomenology of feeling" in
>  > > understanding sexual commitment in groping
>  > behaviour
>  > > in public places. I will primarily refer to this
>  > text
>  > > by CS Pierce  http://www.textlog.de/4298.html
>  > and
>  > > request the readers to inquire why the feminist
>  > > discussion of sexual violence ( or sexual ethics)
>  > > bypasses several theoretical-and philosophical
>  > > objections—even schools in order to engage in
>  > what is
>  > > known as 'feminist reductionisms." Avoidance of
>  > this
>  > > deep, inward critique is more visible in newspaper
>  > > articles : have a look at that and you'll
>  > understand
>  > > what is gender, caste or class sensitive but
>  > > theoretically   incorrect and incoherent
>  > standpoint.
>  > > A theoretically correct standpoint can take all
>  > > challenges, it doesn't take recourse to cunning or
>  > > makes practical excuses. Leslie Green similarly
>  > talks
>  > > about Dworkin and Mackinnon et. al for making such
>  > > theoretically incorrect arguments to ban
>  > pornography
>  > > in Canada; but even though theoretically
>  > incorrect,
>  > > they were practically enough and who knows
>  > –socially
>  > > required too. Today's feminisms are full of such
>  > > vacuous muscle flexing.
>  > >
>  > >        Now, to the main point : what on earth is
>  > > "theoretical correctness?" There is a huge
>  > literature
>  > > on all of this so I'll be limited and sketchy for
>  > the
>  > > time being  but promise more  if required.
>  > >
>  > > Let me tell you my source first : I owe much to
>  > > Habermas when I use this phrase; owe but with a
>  > > difference. Today I shall state this while not
>  > going
>  > > into the details of my adoption with
>  > qualification.
>  > >            We can start with an offhand approach
>  > by
>  > > taking theoretical correctness in scientific ( or
>  > > empirico analytic) discourses. There a theory is
>  > > incorrect if the axioms it proposes  is
>  > invalidated
>  > > say—in experiments or other forms of self
>  > -referential
>  > > 'methodological' moorings peculiar to science. In
>  > > other forms of human ( historical-hermeneutic)
>  > > sciences, the question of  theoretical correctness
>  > has
>  > > been debated for the last 200 years or so. But to
>  > ease
>  > > this trouble let us take a simple approach. Marx
>  > > himself never believed that all theories could be
>  > > equally true or correct or otherwise he would not
>  > have
>  > > laid emphasis on practical-critical sensuous
>  > activity
>  > > where theory has to prove itself and vice versa.
>  > But
>  > > these are old debates and Shuddha and all others
>  > are
>  > > well aware of this; my point here is  to hint at
>  > the
>  > > availability of  the option of true theory  in
>  > older
>  > > discourses also. So there you have the precursors.
>  > In
>  > > between you can throw in the fact that theory
>  > > consistently has been held to have been generating
>  > or
>  > > relying upon abstract universals  ( supposedly
>  > immune
>  > > to interests) while  practice is concrete,
>  > particular
>  > > and interested. Much of this has been refuted. But
>  > > what has not been refuted is that  truth is simply
>  > not
>  > > discursive : that we sit and talk and come to a
>  > > consensus that this is true and it becomes true.
>  > There
>  > > are statements or propositions which are true or
>  > > false. There are such things as true, false,
>  > right,
>  > > good and correct.There is an internal
>  > justification
>  > > that is necessary other than an external one.
>  > > Starting from this assumption and using Habermas's
>  > > insights, we can make a clear departure here. The
>  > > erstwhile discourse of practice didn't admit of
>  > truth
>  > > or correctness (I'm  overriding for simplicity's
>  > sake
>  > > the little hiatus of levels  between declarative
>  > claim
>  > > to truth and the normative claim to
>  > correctness—as in
>  > > late Habermas.). For example that  women should go
>  > out
>  > >  and vote or wear a particular sign when they are
>  > > married or who will love whom was not considered
>  > akin
>  > > to statements that  could be true or false. But
>  > the
>  > > moment the feminists started debating these rules,
>  > > norms, or customs—it could be said that the
>  > question
>  > > of correctness was brought about in the realm of
>  > > practice through their argumentation. That social
>  > > norms could be debated for their validity claims
>  > has
>  > > been emphatically made by Habermas. Why child
>  > marriage
>  > > should be shunned became  a matter of
>  > argumentative
>  > > justification and thus particular norms or customs
>  > > were not simply in-appropriate, they were
>  > incorrect.
>  > > "Practical questions admit of truth ..and correct
>  > > norms must be capable of being  grounded in a way
>  > > similar to true statements." Validity involves a
>  > > notion of correctness analogous to the idea of
>  > truth.
>  > > And this applies to all those harassment norms,
>  > > groping forms  and all that we were discussing.
>  > And if
>  > > there is a debate ( moreover  if they are to be
>  > > justified) then it must be intersubjectively
>  > > validated, agreed? Now,  to examine a validity
>  > claim
>  > > in a discourse, one stops conveying information or
>  > > experiences from the empirical standpoint ( i.e.,
>  > > variety in difference), and brackets or suspends
>  > all
>  > > judgment to examine a problematised validity
>  > claim.
>  > > This is extrication from all claims to action or
>  > > practical rationality and is absolutely self
>  > reflexive
>  > > or theoretical. A "critique of knowledge" is the
>  > aim
>  > > of theoretical discourse; "political will
>  > formation "
>  > > is the aim of practical discourse. Therefore, it
>  > is
>  > > easy and obvious now : what is politically
>  > incorrect
>  > > may be  theoretically correct and what is
>  > > theoretically incorrect may be politically
>  > correct.
>  > >
>  > >        Let me try to explain this a bit. And this
>  > > though I first wrote as a post edit article in
>  > > Anandabazar Patrika in 2000, I  still hold that
>  > point
>  > > as unrefuted. Consider the anti harassment
>  > legislation
>  > > initiated by the Supreme Court which it calls
>  > 'norms'
>  > > and must be instituted in all offices. It
>  > catalogues a
>  > > list of 'unwelcome sexual behaviour'which ranges
>  > from
>  > > sexual propositions to showing pornography and so
>  > and
>  > > so forth. My question was, why don't they give a
>  > list
>  > > of welcome sexual behaviour, all men/women will
>  > act
>  > > accordingly and there will be no problems. But
>  > > everybody knows that that is ridiculous. Hence if
>  > you
>  > > cannot bring that list, how come you bring the
>  > list of
>  > > unwelcome sexual behaviour and catalogue hilarious
>  > > items? If sexual propositioning in workplace is
>  > > harassment, then where there are so called 'sex
>  > > workers' -who are looking forward and waiting
>  > badly
>  > > for  those sexual propositions, what will happen
>  > to
>  > > the norm?. Sexual harassment in workplace is
>  > > ridiculous when sex itself is work. But couldn't
>  > the
>  > > sex workers be harassed ? Ofcourse, but there  the
>  > > harassment has to be non sexual in order to be
>  > outside
>  > > of  work ( like sex here is considered external to
>  > > work in office). For them    there will be  a
>  > separate
>  > > list I guess. But my central tendency was
>  > > theoretically considered such lists are not
>  > possible.
>  > > In this, I remember having phoned Partha
>  > Chatterjee-
>  > > when I was writing this article and I did include
>  > his
>  > > point in the article. He simply discouraged me by
>  > > saying that there is less use of theoretical
>  > > objections here; a consensus is assumed and such
>  > norms
>  > > should be put in place as protection -- is also
>  > > warranted; it is practically useful. There was
>  > nothing
>  > > for me not to agree.
>  > > I'll argue  today—after seven years since that
>  > > article, in the domain of  ordinary discourse
>  > > feminist claims are still made in the context of
>  > > everyday life, but  are not allowed to be
>  > > problematised. Correctness here is  in accordance
>  > with
>  > > the rules. The call for argumentative
>  > justification is
>  > > overruled in favour of moral, practical or
>  > political
>  > > propriety.  Let me tell you that I don't doubt the
>  > > strategic essentiality in all this but reiterate
>  > again
>  > > as above  that what is practically useful or
>  > > politically correct may not be theoretically
>  > correct
>  > > too. We have to live with this disjunction like
>  > people
>  > > live with gonorrhea or AIDS. And this is why I use
>  > and
>  > > often use 'theoretical correctness ( in the sense
>  > of
>  >> truth)', and I only hope Shuddha now onwards will
>  > use
>  > > that too.
>  > >
>  > >          Finally an exemplary reference :  Leslie
>  > > Green—one of the greatest legal ( and social )
>  > > philosophers of our time and now a philosopher of
>  > law
>  > > at Oxford  has deployed the phrase theoretical
>  > > correctness while he talks in this mode , "the
>  > central
>  > > theoretical error thus lies……etc…." [ Leslie
>  > Green,
>  > > Sexuality, Authenticity, and Modernity, Canadian
>  > > Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 8(1), January
>  > 1995,
>  > > p.80].  I consider Leslie ( who is equally
>  > outspoken
>  > > about "feminist reductionisms") one of my abstract
>  > > gurus, so   if Shuddha goes to Leslie with this---
>  > a
>  > > bit sly entreaty, "What on earth is theoretical
>  > > error?"  I'm sure Leslie will give a far  better
>  > > answer.
>  > >
>  > > Till then
>  > > Arnab
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >      Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it
>  > now, on
>  >
>  http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html/
>  > > _________________________________________
>  > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
>  > the city.
>  > > Critiques & Collaborations
>  > > To subscribe: send an email to
>  > reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the
>  > subject header.
>  > > To unsubscribe:
>  > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>  > > List archive:
>  > <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  >
>  > http://indersalim.livejournal.com
>  > _________________________________________
>  > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
>  > the city.
>  > Critiques & Collaborations
>  > To subscribe: send an email to
>  > reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the
>  > subject header.
>  > To unsubscribe:
>  > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>  > List archive:
>  <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
>       Bring your gang together - do your thing. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups
>
>



-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com