I would like to echo Malgosia's comment that we are always already
in a relationship where we do care what happens, where we are
committed to certain positions and values.
This seems to me to be the paradox that is illuminated by
post-structuaralism and deconstruction. We care, but we
cannot absolutely or objectively justify that care in such
way that is independent of our cultural surroundings.
Foucault's point is not that this is 'good' or 'bad', in
fact, it escapes such evaluation. Rather, commitments and
values, and the way they opperate, are what we need to
understand. Understanding can lead to stategizing. But
it won't reconcile the paradox.
Joanna Crosby
------------------
in a relationship where we do care what happens, where we are
committed to certain positions and values.
This seems to me to be the paradox that is illuminated by
post-structuaralism and deconstruction. We care, but we
cannot absolutely or objectively justify that care in such
way that is independent of our cultural surroundings.
Foucault's point is not that this is 'good' or 'bad', in
fact, it escapes such evaluation. Rather, commitments and
values, and the way they opperate, are what we need to
understand. Understanding can lead to stategizing. But
it won't reconcile the paradox.
Joanna Crosby
------------------