Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Progressive politics, reform, and queer theory

10 replies

DomesticatedZombie · 27/03/2022 07:43

I've noticed people refer to things as 'progressive ' as if this was de facto a good thing recently. (Education reform and a drag queen performing being two that spring to mind).

From what I understand of it the term varies hugely in meaning between historical period, location and person. But basically 'in favour of change'.

  1. Change is the only constant so seems slightly odd to be 'in favour' of it - sort of like being in favour of gravity, no?
  2. Why would change automatically be a good thing? Is this tying in with utopian idealism?
  3. How does this relate to queer theory/post modernism (if at all)?

Would love to hear the thoughts of FWR.

OP posts:
ButlerianJihad · 27/03/2022 09:35

If you consider being 'in favour of change' in historical context - roughly speaking the left right political divide came from the French Revolution. Those in favour of it - and others, notably Edmund Burke, who felt such sudden and fundamental social change was a recipe for disaster. This formed the basis of conservative thought. Burke advocated for a slower pace of change, not no change at all. Consider the potential consequences first and take a pragmatic approach. To Burke human nature was like a deep dark and unknowable forest, the wisdom of tradition in the form of social conventions form guardrails for our protection, necessary, because we are wandering around in a dark and dangerous place. It's easy to dismantle these guardrails but we had better be sure we know that it's safe to do so beforehand because they can't so easily be rebuilt. If you think about the forces unleashed by the French revolution, you may feel he was vindicated somewhat. However, people were starving to death, while a corrupt and decadent elite holed up in their castle. Without the French Revolution the values of democracy, liberty and equality would not have spread through the West in quite the way they did. And we like these values today. So progressives feel they were on the right side of history in that case. And almost always they were - except earlier in the 20th century when they got carried away with eugenics and later on when they got carried away with pedophilia. Conservatives looking to conserve are always going to be trailing behind, typically conservatives today are just 5 years behind the progressives. So they dictate the pace of change. Now they have their eyes set on fully automated luxury queer communism - they want this done already, what's the point in dragging our heels? This is the direction of history, the end goal is in sight, why wait? Of course what we are heading into is not luxury communism but techno neo feudalism. Still, they'll settle with the queer part.

Change is seen by new left activists as an automatic good thing to a large extent because, as above, it typically always has been.

But here we are at the end of history, or the beginning of the end of the end of history and Marxism has failed. Liberal capitalism is all there is - even embraced by the parties on the left. All serious economic issues are placed well out of the reach of any meddling electorate. But we still need the political theatre of going to the ballot box and picking which wing of same bird we want in charge. So this is really where the culture wars come from. It's in the elites interests to make sure we have these toys to play with so we think we're doing politics and have a say. The more distracting and exhausting the better. Even Putin is in on it, the more chaos and anger those in power can create the better, because the ultimate goal is to undermine solidarity so even those who do notice what's going on can't mobilise any kind of resistance. Which leaves us weak and confused.

Which is where postmodernism comes in. Postmodernism is also the time we are living in - after modernity if you like. Modernity being the enlightenment project of human emancipation through science and reason - the ultimate utopian project. Others say we're in high/liquid/late/hyper modernity rather than any distinct new phase. But the heavy industry has been superceded by the digital/information age now. We are subsumed by technology. This creates endless fragmentation and atomisation. Consumerism is all that binds us and capital flows into and colonises everything, dissolving all boundaries. Biology is the next frontier for global technocapitalism. Anything that can be commodified will. This is the postmodern time we live in.

Queer theory is just a convenient tool to legitimise this and give it a liberatory gloss - and it utterly baffles me how Marxist academics (not all, but a significant majority) have become the useful idiots of silicon Valley transhumanists. You can't have economic justice - but don't worry, you can become your anime avatar.

This is probably far too long and non-sensical. Look forward to someone else's more coherent take!

Aretina · 27/03/2022 09:42

I disagree that liberal capitalism is all that's left. Socialism also still exists, and is not the same as the state capitalism practised in the USSR.

I believe that progress and change are not the same thing; change can be regressive.

DomesticatedZombie · 27/03/2022 10:00

Thanks, ButlerianJihad, that's all fascinating.

I need to fill some of the gaping gaps in my knowledge. If Burke was the more conservative voice, can you suggest some that were more in favour of a 'progressive' stance?

Aretina - does socialism operate anywhere in the world, functionally? China and Cuba is what Google is giving me. Certainly China is a success economically, but it's not a model I'd want to follow in terms of sustainability, human rights, etc.

I agree that change can be - well, I'm not going to say 'regressive' because I think that supports the idea that history is an upward trending line, and I think that's a mistake. Change can be as negative as it can be positive. So, you're defining 'progress' as positive change.

Which is interesting, because surely we often don't all agree on what is positive and what is negative? Expanding the welfare state is hotly contested, to give just one example - Brexit another.

A line from Arendt:

In 1972, discussing women's liberation, she observed "the real question to ask is, what will we lose if we win?"

OP posts:
Aretina · 27/03/2022 10:05

China and Cuba are to some extent socialist, but we also have elements of socialism here: the NHS us a prime example, as are benefits systems.

DomesticatedZombie · 27/03/2022 10:09

Hmm ... but we wouldn't describe the UK as a socialist country, would we?

OP posts:
tabbycatstripy · 27/03/2022 10:12

Whether a change is 'progressive' or not depends on what you want to happen.

ButlerianJihad · 27/03/2022 10:26

I think it depends how socialism is defined. A capitalist economy with redistributive policies may or may not be socialist, depending on your perspective.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men

Wollstonecraft herself wrote in defence of progress and the dismantling of the monarchic/aristrocratic hierarchies in her vindication of the rights of men, followed of course by her vindication of the rights of women.

ButlerianJihad · 27/03/2022 10:26

(In direct response to Burke)

ButlerianJihad · 27/03/2022 10:28

So there are the foundations of both conservatism and feminism - at odds with one another

Daftmum47 · 14/11/2022 08:25

@ButlerianJihad jumping in a few months later to say this was a fascinating summary, thank you.

beginning to think about these issues more now.

anyone recommend any good books?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread