Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 15:59:46 +1100 From: bpalmer-AT-pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) Subject: Re: Poststructuralism & Ethics Dirk said. . . >We've heard much about "doing" that is not "doing in a conservative >sense", "effects" that are not "effects in a traditional sense" and >"actions" that are "actions in adifferent sense". Obviously ethics >has got to do with acting, and therefore the question of action and >effect can not be neglected by post-structuralist ethics. It sometimes sounds as if the Emperor has no clothes. (Or are they just differnt clothes that you can't see?) >On the other hand, following MF, the main effects in society are not >provoked by acting individuals but by "enonces", that influence each >other in the field of discourse and for these effects noone can be held >responsible.Not only what is uttered and what not, even what happens >and what not seems to be dependent on anonymous "enonces" and the >order of discourse. > >So my questions are: "Is there any notion of 'responsibility' in ps and >on what basis?" Good question. Also is there a difference between personal and collective responsibility? And if so, on what basis? >and "What are the characteristics of the alternative >concepts of 'acting' and 'effect' (other than being different)?" Another good question. >(most of the glorious effects of ps that were mentioned yet are >intra-academic and accompanied by no relevant social change at all). So far, I have heard no one provide a constuctive answer concerning my question of action. _______________________________________________________________ Bryan Palmer bpalmer-AT-pcug.org.au Canberra - Australia's National Capital ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005