This was such a rewarding read, and made me think a lot about the Didion vs Babitz discourse I see pop up a lot. (The feud is more of a narrative put upon them by others, though, rather than anything they engaged in publically.) I guess what it comes down to is one figure being seen as “the thinker” (masculine archetype) and “the feeler” (feminine archetype); one seems sacred and the other seems relatable. Elitist vs voice of the people. But what we lose when we tip too far towards either side is the debate itself — it becomes all about protecting identity instead of thinking critically about ideas, and how we can put them into action.
Yes! That's exactly it — protecting identity instead of thinking critically, which is a way of staunching agency. Thanks so much for reading! I'm glad it connected with you.
This was such a rewarding read, and made me think a lot about the Didion vs Babitz discourse I see pop up a lot. (The feud is more of a narrative put upon them by others, though, rather than anything they engaged in publically.) I guess what it comes down to is one figure being seen as “the thinker” (masculine archetype) and “the feeler” (feminine archetype); one seems sacred and the other seems relatable. Elitist vs voice of the people. But what we lose when we tip too far towards either side is the debate itself — it becomes all about protecting identity instead of thinking critically about ideas, and how we can put them into action.
Yes! That's exactly it — protecting identity instead of thinking critically, which is a way of staunching agency. Thanks so much for reading! I'm glad it connected with you.