Reply to Joan Scott
In reading and reflecting on Joan Scott's reply to my article, it occurs to me that it may be worthwhile to re-state, in brief and therefore simplified terms, a couple of my points that she picks up on. First, let me say that I was inspired to write my original essay in part because I had found many of Scott's formulations-about the often ill-understood links between knowledge and experience or the problematic constitution of subjects inside the several hermatically sealed counter-worlds of identity politics-highly suggestive. I therefore set out to understand that which Scott does and does not accomplish in her book, Gender and the Politics of History. As I remarked in my original essay, there is much to be learned from reading this book. What finally troubles me about Scott's work, however, is the way in which "difference" slides quickly over into "opposition," a polarity of forces or ideas that get figured not merely as incompatible but as utterly irreconcilable. ' This move suggests that, for Scott, there can be no differences that do not usher in a struggle for pre-eminence-even, or perhaps especially, among feminist scholars.