At 5:03 PM +1300 3/5/97, Campbell Jones wrote:
>Megill recognises that Foucault
>breeches the laws of acceptability of traditional historiography. FOr
>Megill, FOucault is something of a 'transgressor'.
This "transgression" thing is, appropriately enough, a bit out of control.
Laura Kipnis, the Larry Flynt apologist, told me recently that she doesn't
really porn - she just likes its "transgressivenss." Can you have a
standard for judging transgressions, in which case they become
revolutionary acts (to use an old, unfashionable political vocabulary), or
is it just the violation that's a thrill? The ritual sacrifice of newborns
would be "transgressive," but presumably not approved of by most people on
this list.
Less melodramatically, is it acceptable for someone writing what looks to
be like history - especially history of a sort that is making fairly
sweeping claims - to "breech the laws" of "traditional historiography"?
Which means, as far as I can tell, a sloppiness about evidence in the
service of a "higher" truth. So what's your standard for judging that
higher truth then?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217 USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
>Megill recognises that Foucault
>breeches the laws of acceptability of traditional historiography. FOr
>Megill, FOucault is something of a 'transgressor'.
This "transgression" thing is, appropriately enough, a bit out of control.
Laura Kipnis, the Larry Flynt apologist, told me recently that she doesn't
really porn - she just likes its "transgressivenss." Can you have a
standard for judging transgressions, in which case they become
revolutionary acts (to use an old, unfashionable political vocabulary), or
is it just the violation that's a thrill? The ritual sacrifice of newborns
would be "transgressive," but presumably not approved of by most people on
this list.
Less melodramatically, is it acceptable for someone writing what looks to
be like history - especially history of a sort that is making fairly
sweeping claims - to "breech the laws" of "traditional historiography"?
Which means, as far as I can tell, a sloppiness about evidence in the
service of a "higher" truth. So what's your standard for judging that
higher truth then?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217 USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>