>
> 5/29/97 9:22 am: COLIN WIGHT writes...
>
> >One can't help but be amazed at the power play that hides behind the vulgar
> >labelling that pervades Steve's post.
Samuel Chambers replied:
> Fine point.
>
I couldn't agree more. Except that I would add that characterizing it
as a "power play" is also a power play.
Moreover, I agree with Foucault that truth is only possible in
contexts where power is being or has been excercized. In fact, I
think that Foucault and others (notably Joseph Rouse) have shown
convincingly that it is not possible even to believe anything outside
of power relations, much less to say anything, and least of all to say
anything that is true, outside of such relations.
For example, using words in accordance with their accepted usage is
also a power play, as is using them in a way that cuts against their
accepted usage.
To give two even more blatant examples: citing a passage from
Foucault's work on a Foucault list is a power play, as is appealing to
the name of Bertrand Russell.
Having said that, I want to address the unsubstantiated implication
that there was something wrong with me using the phrase "vulgar
realism." First of all, the phrase "vulgar realism", far from
implying that all realism must be "vulgar," implies the opposite: that
there are distinctions to be made between the sort of realism (the
vulgar sort) that some people who identify with the Anti-postmodernism
Industry have been known to disseminate, and other (more nuanced and
plausible) sorts of realism.
It in defense of the more plausible, less superstitious forms of
realism that I insist on exposing vulgar realism for what it is:
vulgar.
Steve D'Arcy
Toronto
> 5/29/97 9:22 am: COLIN WIGHT writes...
>
> >One can't help but be amazed at the power play that hides behind the vulgar
> >labelling that pervades Steve's post.
Samuel Chambers replied:
> Fine point.
>
I couldn't agree more. Except that I would add that characterizing it
as a "power play" is also a power play.
Moreover, I agree with Foucault that truth is only possible in
contexts where power is being or has been excercized. In fact, I
think that Foucault and others (notably Joseph Rouse) have shown
convincingly that it is not possible even to believe anything outside
of power relations, much less to say anything, and least of all to say
anything that is true, outside of such relations.
For example, using words in accordance with their accepted usage is
also a power play, as is using them in a way that cuts against their
accepted usage.
To give two even more blatant examples: citing a passage from
Foucault's work on a Foucault list is a power play, as is appealing to
the name of Bertrand Russell.
Having said that, I want to address the unsubstantiated implication
that there was something wrong with me using the phrase "vulgar
realism." First of all, the phrase "vulgar realism", far from
implying that all realism must be "vulgar," implies the opposite: that
there are distinctions to be made between the sort of realism (the
vulgar sort) that some people who identify with the Anti-postmodernism
Industry have been known to disseminate, and other (more nuanced and
plausible) sorts of realism.
It in defense of the more plausible, less superstitious forms of
realism that I insist on exposing vulgar realism for what it is:
vulgar.
Steve D'Arcy
Toronto