Hi Henry -
It seems somewhat disingenuous to suppose there is no such thing as a
"dominant logos-discourse". Perhaps a mistake might lie in thinking
that such a discourse is fixed and immovable, even monumental; like
all discourses, it is no doubt changing all the time, although it is
probably defined by its maintenance of political and economic power.
But it's surely a logical mistake, if indeed that connection is made
(I really don't know what the background to this is), to leap from
the assumption of a particular discourse being dominant to the idea
that all discourse involves domination. Perhaps a shift from ideas
of discourse to ideas of relationship might be interesting...
At 1:57 PM -0400 8/8/02, Henry Gould wrote:
>There is no dominant logos-discourse, only
>attempts to describe things using faulty, imprecise tools. If there is no
>dominant, there can be no assertion of canonicity based on an illusory
>dominant/outsider binary.
Best
Alison
--
Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
|