Skip to main content

Naomi versus Naomi


 It appears that Naomi Klein, a Toronto based feminist intellectual who wrote most famously THE SHOCK DOCTRINE (2007), has issues with Naomi Wolf, a San Francisco based feminist intellectual who wrote most famously THE BEAUTY MYTH (1990). Apart from the name, both women are of the same generation and in many respects similar appearance. 

In THE BEAUTY MYTH Wolf criticizes the cosmetics and fashion industries especially as the forward troops in keeping women embarrassed and exploitable. This book was instantly and emphatically praised by various feminist Big Names, like Germaine Greer and Betty Freidan. 

Klein says she is frequently confused with Wolf. Their world does not contain room, it appears, for two Naomis.  She doesn't like being confused with Wolf because she, Klein, is a more reliable leftist whereas Wolf goes off that reservation too often for Klein's comfort.  

 The annoyance has become much more than that, as the phrase "the green New Deal" has acquired momentum in progressive circles.  Both have made use of the term. Klein believes such a program is an imperative for human survival. Wolf believes it is a fraud. And in arguing that the "green New Deal" is a fraud, Wolf has made use of the phrase "the shock doctrine," tightening the intertwine. 

Backing up a bit: Klein believes that capitalists (but never socialists) make unseemly use of crisis in order to achieve their political ends. If leftwing politicians do the same, well, that's okay because their goals are the good ones.  That was the gist of her book The Shock Doctrine. 

The other Naomi has picked up on this. She thinks the power elite in the U.S. is using both climate change and viral epidemics as the kind of shocks necessary to secure their own control. 

Klein doesn't believe any of this, and she finds herself resisting the use of that phrase (on which she has no IP rights) by a woman whom many think is herself. 

I thought this was all worth a post here. On Thursday, if all goes well, I hope to say something about the conflict I have outlined in such neutral a fashion here. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more