Re: Poststructuralism & Ethics

Dirk said. . .

>We've heard much about "doing" that is not "doing in a conservative
>sense", "effects" that are not "effects in a traditional sense" and
>"actions" that are "actions in adifferent sense". Obviously ethics
>has got to do with acting, and therefore the question of action and
>effect can not be neglected by post-structuralist ethics.

It sometimes sounds as if the Emperor has no clothes. (Or are they just
differnt clothes that you can't see?)

>On the other hand, following MF, the main effects in society are not
>provoked by acting individuals but by "enonces", that influence each
>other in the field of discourse and for these effects noone can be held
>responsible.Not only what is uttered and what not, even what happens
>and what not seems to be dependent on anonymous "enonces" and the
>order of discourse.
>So my questions are: "Is there any notion of 'responsibility' in ps and
>on what basis?"

Good question. Also is there a difference between personal and collective
responsibility? And if so, on what basis?

>and "What are the characteristics of the alternative
>concepts of 'acting' and 'effect' (other than being different)?"

Another good question.

>(most of the glorious effects of ps that were mentioned yet are
>intra-academic and accompanied by no relevant social change at all).

So far, I have heard no one provide a constuctive answer concerning my
question of action.

Bryan Palmer
Canberra - Australia's National Capital


Partial thread listing: