Clara Wing-see Ho wrote:
> not allowing one to speak, yes, this is oppressive. but
> allowing one to speak only within a specified realm of discourse
> where the "rules" have been set by some given party...which is
> worse? rhetorical question? perhaps....
i don't think the question is rhetorical given the criticisms by
certain cultural critics (cornell west, bell hooks) lodged at the
'foucault' industry as colin, i think, put it. people/discourses at
the margins are silenced, some say by 'western rationality' others
by diffuse power. the radical aspects of the western academy,
fighting from its own particualar intellectual borderlines,
searching for the answers to these exclusions blames objectivity,
positivism, and a host of assorted straw-words. critics of this
(de)construction have argued exactly what you have pointed out, is
one really 'speaking' if one can only speak through someone else or
within the rubric layed down by another party i.e. western
intellectual critics sitting in the white tower? is the valorisation
of resistance of the fringes of thought really only a position
available to those rooted firmly at the centre?
a few more flippant rhetorical questions which might link the issue
of silence with the issue of the role of the intellectual.
cheers,
paul