it appears that theoretical positionality simpliciter [especially the minimal distinction between this and that - whatever they may be] is hardly - if ever - controversial; note further that even if one is neutral with respect to one particular issue, one is still taking the meta-position of being relatively neutral to that issue. only the non-conscious escape standing into a discursive position, though they can still be objectified [and moreover, their modes of being are particular, and thus ontologically situated in a way that escapes our total control] what then makes some positions/stances and issues/topics controversial? i suppose this shows the non-identity of theory and praxis on the one hand, and their constant interpenetration on the other. even if we could find some way to allow every position equal ground [or at least a fair and charitable hearing] when it comes to theoretical discussion, the matter of implementation will still be selective, will still involve hegemony: that is, certain communicative rules and apparatuses [rather than others] will have to be taken for granted
Posted on: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:50:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015