http://broadrecognition.com/politics/nussbaum-on-butler/ A Feminist Magazine at Yale Mon, 21 May 2012 02:19:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://broadrecognition.com/politics/nussbaum-on-butler/#comment-7514 Louise Sun, 13 May 2012 04:18:38 +0000 http://www.broadrecognition.com/?p=120#comment-7514 Thank God for Nussbaum. Butler's useless theorizing is so ridiculously convoluted and so incredibly devoid of any meaningful politics and policy advocacy that it is a relief to hear an academic voice that has the courage to say what so many others are thinking. Thank God for Nussbaum. Butler’s useless theorizing is so ridiculously convoluted and so incredibly devoid of any meaningful politics and policy advocacy that it is a relief to hear an academic voice that has the courage to say what so many others are thinking.

]]> http://broadrecognition.com/politics/nussbaum-on-butler/#comment-7191 Tom Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:37:31 +0000 http://www.broadrecognition.com/?p=120#comment-7191 I think it is enough to read Butler's Excitable Speech to agree with Nussbaum : A heap of wishful thinking sometimes mitigated by "possibility of failure" but actually after Butler's many endorsements of subversion in this book you tend to forget about her disclaimer. Does subversion really work? It only works after Butler's misreading of Austin, ignorance of Dummet and Habermas and complete avoidance of any legal philosophy and praxis and her style... I do not buy her overcomplicated language she might have written that far simpler and her loads of unaswered questions sometimes 5 in a row,, you do not know why they are there. It seems to me that she is vague on purpose. I think that right now with her theory she is stuck in a deadend. If you want to see the logical consequence of her theory try and read no future by Lee Edelman, you will see... absurd I think it is enough to read Butler’s Excitable Speech to agree with Nussbaum : A heap of wishful thinking sometimes mitigated by “possibility of failure” but actually after Butler’s many endorsements of subversion in this book you tend to forget about her disclaimer. Does subversion really work? It only works after Butler’s misreading of Austin, ignorance of Dummet and Habermas and complete avoidance of any legal philosophy and praxis and her style… I do not buy her overcomplicated language she might have written that far simpler and her loads of unaswered questions sometimes 5 in a row,, you do not know why they are there. It seems to me that she is vague on purpose. I think that right now with her theory she is stuck in a deadend. If you want to see the logical consequence of her theory try and read no future by Lee Edelman, you will see… absurd

]]> http://broadrecognition.com/politics/nussbaum-on-butler/#comment-92 October 2009 Archives : BROAD RECOGNITION Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:33:50 +0000 http://www.broadrecognition.com/?p=120#comment-92 [...] Nuss­baum on Butler [...] [...] Nuss­baum on Butler [...]

]]>