This is incredibly incisive from Ash Sarkar in a brilliant interview with Judith Butler. What does the ambition of building a counter-imaginary mean? Is it simply aggregating change in how individuals talk and think in order to enact political change through social/cultural change? If so how can it be sufficient to the organisation and funding of reactionary forces within society?
I don’t think this is a rejection of Butler’s position but it does suggest it needs to be one part of a broader strategy, being obviously insufficient in its own terms. It raises the question of the strategic contributions which philosophers make in their political involvements. What would Butler’s position look like within a movement or party, as opposed to the outside implied by public intellectualism? This is what their answer about ‘expansive coalitions’ points to, even if I wasn’t entirely persuade by the answer. I’m looking forward to reading the book though.
Mark Carrigan 