Hi, Colin. Well, I definitely agree that what's trying to get a hearing
here is more complicated than a discussion of it through genres of
discourse can cover. (Because genres leak...and my interest is in the
part that leaks.) But the question was What is epistemic violence? And
I gave an answer to that question. As discussed by Lyotard and G.
Spivak.
Several things. First, no, of course this is not simply a "you say
tomAto and I say toAUto" approach to difference. It's simply the
recognition that discourses follow different standards of linking to
produce what then goes by the name of Knowledge. And I don't think this
approach difference puts the squeeze on differance, even if it may not
really think differance through closely enough.
Second, I bring up Lyotard b/c the question was about epistemic
violence, and that's his thang. But I really have a problem with your
cavalier dismissal of anything he has to say b/c you have detected
"unthematized foundationalism" in his work. You're KIDDING? I've read
your posts to this list for a long time and am stunned by this
anti-intellectual response. Heidegger's work ultimately put Being over
the Other and led him into some of the most unethical territory ever (de
Man has a similar story), but that doesn't suggest that we shouldn't
read his work. Not to me anyway. It suggests to me that we ought to
tease through it as carefully as possible. Lyotard follows Kant and
Aristotle (though, to be sure, his read of them is not typical), and the
approach he comes up with is certainly not one I wholeheartedly embrace.
I have to jump off when he drives straight into the Negative. But until
then, the ride is more than worth it. I have to wonder about your
question to me, given your response to Lyotard. Your question to me:
> does it simply function as an institutionalised assumption which
> serves to butress your own theoretical/ideological account of the
> world against criticism. 'It's my view and you commit epistemic
> violence if you critise it from any discourse other than it'.
And third, Lyotard's primary example of epistemic violence in The
Differend has to do with Auschwitz, and I would not consider that
trivial. If you haven't read it, lemme know, and I'll rehearse what he's
suggesting.
Lastly, a question back to you. What is it, do you think, that you have
invested in this quick dismissal of the possibility of epistemic
violence? That is, what is it do you think that made you want to say NO
WAY instead of hmmm...this is interesting even if something bugs me
about it. ? What do you think might be being protected here?
Cheers,
ddd
--
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D
D D. Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D dddavis@xxxxxxxx D
D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D
D D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
here is more complicated than a discussion of it through genres of
discourse can cover. (Because genres leak...and my interest is in the
part that leaks.) But the question was What is epistemic violence? And
I gave an answer to that question. As discussed by Lyotard and G.
Spivak.
Several things. First, no, of course this is not simply a "you say
tomAto and I say toAUto" approach to difference. It's simply the
recognition that discourses follow different standards of linking to
produce what then goes by the name of Knowledge. And I don't think this
approach difference puts the squeeze on differance, even if it may not
really think differance through closely enough.
Second, I bring up Lyotard b/c the question was about epistemic
violence, and that's his thang. But I really have a problem with your
cavalier dismissal of anything he has to say b/c you have detected
"unthematized foundationalism" in his work. You're KIDDING? I've read
your posts to this list for a long time and am stunned by this
anti-intellectual response. Heidegger's work ultimately put Being over
the Other and led him into some of the most unethical territory ever (de
Man has a similar story), but that doesn't suggest that we shouldn't
read his work. Not to me anyway. It suggests to me that we ought to
tease through it as carefully as possible. Lyotard follows Kant and
Aristotle (though, to be sure, his read of them is not typical), and the
approach he comes up with is certainly not one I wholeheartedly embrace.
I have to jump off when he drives straight into the Negative. But until
then, the ride is more than worth it. I have to wonder about your
question to me, given your response to Lyotard. Your question to me:
> does it simply function as an institutionalised assumption which
> serves to butress your own theoretical/ideological account of the
> world against criticism. 'It's my view and you commit epistemic
> violence if you critise it from any discourse other than it'.
And third, Lyotard's primary example of epistemic violence in The
Differend has to do with Auschwitz, and I would not consider that
trivial. If you haven't read it, lemme know, and I'll rehearse what he's
suggesting.
Lastly, a question back to you. What is it, do you think, that you have
invested in this quick dismissal of the possibility of epistemic
violence? That is, what is it do you think that made you want to say NO
WAY instead of hmmm...this is interesting even if something bugs me
about it. ? What do you think might be being protected here?
Cheers,
ddd
--
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D
D D. Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D dddavis@xxxxxxxx D
D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D
D D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD