One more thing before I extricate myself from this thread. Vis-a-vis the
supposed linguistic idealism of my posts and quetzil's posts, I think the
notion of construction articulated by Judith Butler in _Bodies that
Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex"_ is pertinent. What I am
suggesting (and what I think quetzil is arguing) is not linguistic
idealism - rather, it is a poststructuralist speech-act theory (of sorts
- I'm reducing things here of course). As Butler says:
"To claim that the materiality of sex is constructed through a ritualized
repetition of norms is hardly a self-evident claim. Indeed, our customary
notions of "construction" seem to get in the way of understanding such a
claim. For surely bodies live and die; eat and sleep; feel pain,
pleasure; endure illness and violence; and these "facts," one might
skeptically claim, cannot be dismissed as mere construction. Surely there
must be some kind of necessity that accompanies these primary and
irrefutable experiences. And surely there is. But there irrefutability in
no way implies what it might mean to affirm them and through what
discursive means. Moreover, why is it that what is constructed is
understood as an artificial and dispensible character?"
Thus, to postulate an actual past is a discursive act articulated towards
and within the present set of discursive regularities - and thus acquires
whatever meaning it acquires not from its nominal object (the past) but
>from its function within a discursive regime. When one wants to
understand the function and tactical efficacy of a given history, the
reality or unreality of its object is totally irrelevant. Now, this is
not to deny the reality of an actual past. It is only to state that,
within a Foucauldian project (analysing the function and tactical
efficacy of discourses), such an object is beside the point. Under what
conditions, and in whose interests, can a specific history be produced?
How does it circulate? What criteria of evidence and truth does it rely
on and construct anew?
Also, Derrida knows (why don't his disciples, or at least his quoters?)
that his project is always already doomed to failure, in that every
attempt to reach beyond language only circumscribes the other within it.
But, of course, it is doomed to failure and not doomed to failure at the
same time. Double-gesture, anyone?
Linguistic idealism or lingusitic monism is a silly charge to level at
quetzil and myself. Try actually *reading* our posts.
bye bye. my next post will be regarding the question of race in the
context of a Foucauldian analysis of pornography, that chloe brought up.
Excellent question - hopefully it'll generate more productive discussion
than the "actual past". I'm sorry I brought it up.
fight the power.
malcolm
supposed linguistic idealism of my posts and quetzil's posts, I think the
notion of construction articulated by Judith Butler in _Bodies that
Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex"_ is pertinent. What I am
suggesting (and what I think quetzil is arguing) is not linguistic
idealism - rather, it is a poststructuralist speech-act theory (of sorts
- I'm reducing things here of course). As Butler says:
"To claim that the materiality of sex is constructed through a ritualized
repetition of norms is hardly a self-evident claim. Indeed, our customary
notions of "construction" seem to get in the way of understanding such a
claim. For surely bodies live and die; eat and sleep; feel pain,
pleasure; endure illness and violence; and these "facts," one might
skeptically claim, cannot be dismissed as mere construction. Surely there
must be some kind of necessity that accompanies these primary and
irrefutable experiences. And surely there is. But there irrefutability in
no way implies what it might mean to affirm them and through what
discursive means. Moreover, why is it that what is constructed is
understood as an artificial and dispensible character?"
Thus, to postulate an actual past is a discursive act articulated towards
and within the present set of discursive regularities - and thus acquires
whatever meaning it acquires not from its nominal object (the past) but
>from its function within a discursive regime. When one wants to
understand the function and tactical efficacy of a given history, the
reality or unreality of its object is totally irrelevant. Now, this is
not to deny the reality of an actual past. It is only to state that,
within a Foucauldian project (analysing the function and tactical
efficacy of discourses), such an object is beside the point. Under what
conditions, and in whose interests, can a specific history be produced?
How does it circulate? What criteria of evidence and truth does it rely
on and construct anew?
Also, Derrida knows (why don't his disciples, or at least his quoters?)
that his project is always already doomed to failure, in that every
attempt to reach beyond language only circumscribes the other within it.
But, of course, it is doomed to failure and not doomed to failure at the
same time. Double-gesture, anyone?
Linguistic idealism or lingusitic monism is a silly charge to level at
quetzil and myself. Try actually *reading* our posts.
bye bye. my next post will be regarding the question of race in the
context of a Foucauldian analysis of pornography, that chloe brought up.
Excellent question - hopefully it'll generate more productive discussion
than the "actual past". I'm sorry I brought it up.
fight the power.
malcolm