Erik raised the question as to whether there is a "center" in postmodern
discourse, or the power matrices of our episteme. I think that Gabriel
Ash was correct when she said that pragmatism is more central than
marginal (my words), in the sense that it has become one of the (perhaps)
"functional rules" of our episteme's discourse. This view, of course, is
more archaeological than genealogical, which makes it problematic in one
sense. However, it is not to say that there is a "center" to a
discourse, as perhaps I alluded to in my previous post. Rather,
pragmatic language, just like the language of Einsteinian relativity, has
become one of the "normative" or functional rules of our (at least
American) episteme.
Now, because I hold this view, I am very interested in the question of
whether pragmatism can/will/is mutate into another discourse, which could
usher in a new way of handling the issue of political theory/action.
Just like Modern man, the empirico-transcendental, mutated (according to
Foucault) into the genealogical (dare I say "subject"?), and thus, Modern
discourse self-destructed, out of which postmodern discourses emerged,
can the same type of mutation occur via pragmatism. I sense that the
French feminists are already on to this and we may witness this mutation
occuring via their thought. But right now I'm not sure.
What does everybody think about this?
Sincerely,
Kristin Switala
------------------