From: darcy-AT-chass.utoronto.ca (Stephen D'Arcy) Subject: Re: Against vulgar theories of truth Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 15:45:31 -0400 (EDT) > > 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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005