Reviews for Sexual citizenship

The average rating for Sexual citizenship based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-07-17 00:00:00 Ingo Rolle This book (1993) is now nearly twenty years old and is mainly useful for historians of social trends: some things Evans talks about are still pressing issues in our culture today but the social formations undergirding the debate have shifted and, thus, some of what he talks about reads as remarkably out of date (for instance, he gives quite a bit of discussion to "cultural feminism" producing the dominant discourse on female sexuality, and gives Dworkin and Mackinnon a more significant place in feminist theory than they currently hold). This work does, however, show to good effect how Evans sees certain socioeconomic trends as influencing debates about sexualities in early 1990s-era Britain. I was somewhat disappointed, however, in his "materialist" philosophy in practice. While he quite rightly critiques Foucault's concepts of discursivity and power/knowledge as laid out by Foucault in _The History of Sexuality Volume I_ on the grounds that Foucault, for polemic reasons, overstates the dominance of discourse and the inability of agency within dominant discourses, Evans too readily conflates Foucault into "scripting" theory. He then uses "scripting" to discuss the central issues in his work while being rather light on the "material" side of the equation. Evans focuses too much on the power of consumption and the positive effects consumer markets have had on sexual "minorities," while ignoring sites of production and consumption: that is, while espousing Marxism, he too easily falls into the 1980s-1990s trap of reifying economic forces and their effects throughout the entire capitalist circuit so that he can focus on sites of consumption as foundations for "freedom" and "resistance" to dominant political discourses. Still, a good place to start a line of reasoning about sexualities in capitalism (Rosemary Hennessy does it a bit better about a decade later).

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-11 00:00:00 David Rumsey Cohen's brilliance as an analytical philosopher shines in this extraordinary collection of essays. The analytical penetration of Prof. Cohen's pen manages to shed light on difficult questions in moral philosophy, economics and issues of justice. This book is devoted to arguing against Nozick's right-libertarianism, but it does so much more than that. The dense elegance of the text is made even more extraordinary by the fact that it is devoted to a seemingly hopeless (and unpopular) cause: analytical Marxism. The grudging respect that Cohen shows towards Nozick might have a lot to do with the fact that both libertarianism and Marxism are radical, fringe, unpopular philosophies. And, of course, both Cohen and Nozick are brilliant and thought-provoking maestros - the Gandalf and Saruman of analytical political philosophy. Putting them together in the same ring is prime time material. Seeing them spar is like watching a very brutal fight, courteously conducted to the end. Sparring requires two sides, but Nozick is obviously absent from the conversation. But, because Cohen is so fair to his opponent, and because he manages to present him in the most favourable light, it feels, a few silly straw-man jabs aside, as if Nozick were present, sparring in the same ring. Cohen tackles head-on the libertarian notion of self-ownership (which grounds absolute property rights in external objects and oneself). He rejects it, and everything that proceeds from it, but not before managing to shed ample new light on its problems, and demarcating its analytical limits, in a way that is useful - even for those of us who consider ourselves defenders of the notion. Nor is Cohen kind on Marxist prejudices, either. He follows the logic of the arguments meticulously, and never fails to pummel on a weak spot. For example, he paradoxically ends up accusing orthodox Marxists of being TOO closely aligned with such bourgeois notions in their theory of proletarian exploitation. Cohen's argument, which I've also noticed in my reading of the classics, is that both Marxism and libertarianism rely on self-ownership, but in different ways, and that they both have a theory of "exploitation" that springs out of this - it's just that their version of the exploiters (capitalists vs. the welfare state) and of the exploited class (workers vs. tax-payers) are different. The other chapters engage the philosophies of Locke, Dworkin, Roemer, Otsuka, Steiner and others. These are treasure troves of excellent analysis - even if Cohen doesn't always emerge as clearly victorious. But one can walk away from it all with a new understanding of the issues at stake. Stylistically, the book is occasionally funny and always illuminating. Some of the given examples are dizzyingly ingenious. But, as a product of Oxford-taught analytical philosophy, the text suffers from 1) a jargon-heavy armchair style, which leads to an occasional scholastic denseness of arguments, and 2) the analytical philosopher's disease, thanks to which that the bigger picture is occasionally lost while the author busies himself with pointless analytical fiddling on the margins. But, aside from those few minor stylistic blemishes, the only reason why this is not a 5-star book is that the project of the book, the energy of the author, is devoted to mostly faulty and outdated premises (in the opinion of the established sciences - or, as I'm sure Marx himself would say, bastions of false consciousness and bourgeois falsehoods). The book contains references to models that been largely rejected, and for a good reason: the Marxist criticism of class exploitation (which Cohen himself agrees needs updating - to say the least!), the labour theory of value (which nobody in economics takes seriously anymore, after the marginal revolution of the late 19th century), and a moral belief in egalitarian and socialist utopianism. This last part - criticism of inequalities and power imbalances - is the only part of the Marxist doctrine that still resonates with a large number of people today. Cohen manages to give Marxism new credibility by wearing it in a liberal garb. Overall, it is shame that Cohen devoted his life to such follies. It doesn't matter that the exegesis of the foundations is rock-solid, when the foundations themselves are largely crackling and falling apart. Cohen's intellectual defence of socialism fails, despite his brilliance, because, at the end of the day, when the sparring is over, he falls back to Marxist terminology and Marxist economics - both of which have been demolished intellectually by better men than me. But I'm sure the same criticism, that it's all a foolish devotion to lost causes and implausible utopias, could be levied against us defenders of liberty. Unarguable answers to moral questions are hard to come by, even if subjective certitude of moral righteousness is all too easy to inherit and get entrenched in. We have to live with uncertainty, and with our fallibility. And we can profit from uncertainty by looking out for new ideas and new directions - and, in this eternal sparring match, not only with neutral and known entities, but with unfathomable beings of darkness and of light - not knowing which is which - we benefit greatly from having such amazing sparring partners as Prof. Cohen.