Her position to me is quite fascinating from the psychoanalytic perspective, which she tends to lump in with Marxism and other theoretical practices as failing to challenge or, more radically, merely reinscribing the dominance of the ontological phallogocentric order. It is interesting to me in how it negotiates and elides its own desire, insofar as desire is the grounds for any political project. In this sense, we can see that while Haraway explicitly wants to challenge existing structures of desire, those same structures, insofar as we are structured by desire, must have produced her desire for this kind of radical politics. This raises some interesting questions.
To what extent can we say that all political aims are mappable onto existing structures of desire, mediated by the Man/Woman binary and all its symbolically intertwined ramifications? And if one's politics is to abrogate and disrupt that structure, is there a way we can understand this? What is our model? Or is this the very superficial impossibility delineated by a conservative symbolic order to protect itself from radical change?