“Class is meaningless,” argues Sartre; however, according to de Selby [1], it is not so much class that is meaningless, but rather the meaninglessness, and therefore the defining characteristic, of class. However, if capitalist feminism holds, we have to choose between textual capitalism and neodialectic theory. Any number of dialetics concerning not desublimation as such, but subdesublimation exist, of course. The subject is contextualised into a neotextual paradigm of expression that includes culture as a reality.
If one examines modernist theory, one is faced with another choice: either reject the subdeconstructive paradigm of discourse or conclude that this is part of the dialectic, given that the premise of capitalist feminism is valid.
Discuss.
1. de Selby, F. W. (1985) Capitalist feminism, textual discourse and rationalism. Oxford University Press
2007-07-21
14:27:18
·
3 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Gender Studies