1

What does

is Steiner not complicit with this state of affairs?

mean here?

I think it means "does not Steiner have any role in the conflicts between the feminists and the Marxists? yes she has, and worse that...."

Context:

Steiner may be recognising a hitherto suppressed feminine aesthetic but even to dare to speak of beauty seriously is to lay herself open to accusations of naivety, self-deception and a lack of humour. And, also, of course, of gross political incorrectness. For was not the experience of Beauty largely reconstructed in the eighteenth century as an affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity, as the Marxist critic Herbert Marcuse has proposed? Rich and powerful men desire to possess it as a sign of their wealth and power – their lovely architectures and landscaped vistas, their art and clothes, their beautiful women and children, indicative of their superior position, health and happiness. In the grumbling skirmishes between the feminists and the Marxists, is Steiner not complicit with this state of affairs? Worse, the evolutionary psychologists have reconstructed much the same thing and, as we shall see in Chapter 4, some theorists and social scientists believe they may even have a political agenda.

from: Art and Science by Siân Ede

1
  • 3
    "Complicit" comes from the Latin complicare, to fold in. It means involved with wrongdoing. That won't help you understand this postmodernist psychobabble, though.
    – deadrat
    Jul 12 '15 at 7:27
1

When people write "is it not", or "Is <proper noun or pronoun> not", like this, it's a statement, which they are inviting you to challenge, if you want.

Eg if I say "Is it not time to go to the pub?" I am saying "I think it is time to go to the pub. Do you disagree?".

If I say "Is David not the loudest person you ever met?" I am telling you that I think that David is the loudest person I ever met.

So, the author is saying that they think that Steiner is complicit, and asking you to think about whether you disagree with that (if you understand the question and can be bothered).

0

By "recognising a hitherto suppressed feminine aesthetic", Steiner is coming into disagreement with the Marxist idea that "beauty" is merely an "affirmation of bourgeois capitalist identity", which according to some Marxists makes her "complicit in the state of affairs" wherein "rich and powerful men desire to possess [beauty] as a sign of their wealth and power – their lovely architectures and landscaped vistas, their art and clothes, their beautiful women and children, indicative of their superior position, health and happiness".

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.