Whether or not the world exists prior to or as a result of its symbolic, ideological or discursive articulation is one question that does not disturb me greatly as a practising historian. Each day that I am forced to move from my bed, refrain from eating chocolate or contemplate the eternal question of whether pink can be worn with red, I am convinced that the world does, indeed, exist. The challenge that poststructuralism poses to this world of colour, taste and sleep deprivation is that the world exists, and others perceive it in limitless degrees askew from my own perception as a result of the symbolic, ideological and discursive articulation of individuals. Whether the different strands of poststructuralist thought are judged as radical, conservative or reactionary, the intellectual and political stakes of the debate rest more on what poststructuralism can create in the way of furthering the debate than what it can destroy by way of destabilising the debate.
Saturday, June 22, 2019
22 June 2007
Orders of Magnitude: Why Poststructuralism cannot destroy the world.
Whether or not the world exists prior to or as a result of its symbolic, ideological or discursive articulation is one question that does not disturb me greatly as a practising historian. Each day that I am forced to move from my bed, refrain from eating chocolate or contemplate the eternal question of whether pink can be worn with red, I am convinced that the world does, indeed, exist. The challenge that poststructuralism poses to this world of colour, taste and sleep deprivation is that the world exists, and others perceive it in limitless degrees askew from my own perception as a result of the symbolic, ideological and discursive articulation of individuals. Whether the different strands of poststructuralist thought are judged as radical, conservative or reactionary, the intellectual and political stakes of the debate rest more on what poststructuralism can create in the way of furthering the debate than what it can destroy by way of destabilising the debate.
Whether or not the world exists prior to or as a result of its symbolic, ideological or discursive articulation is one question that does not disturb me greatly as a practising historian. Each day that I am forced to move from my bed, refrain from eating chocolate or contemplate the eternal question of whether pink can be worn with red, I am convinced that the world does, indeed, exist. The challenge that poststructuralism poses to this world of colour, taste and sleep deprivation is that the world exists, and others perceive it in limitless degrees askew from my own perception as a result of the symbolic, ideological and discursive articulation of individuals. Whether the different strands of poststructuralist thought are judged as radical, conservative or reactionary, the intellectual and political stakes of the debate rest more on what poststructuralism can create in the way of furthering the debate than what it can destroy by way of destabilising the debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)