This is well-put, Simon, and yes, I would agree with you. Still, to say
that ascendant ideologies are breeding in unexamined language use, is
different than to say that reasoned discourse per se is totalitarian, which
is the only "point" I was able to garner from the speech Bob Grumman
originally quoted from the Buffalo event. In my view THAT argument is
being used as a sort of ready-made myth for "alternative" poetics.
Henry
At 12:25 PM 8/9/02 +0000, you wrote:
>You have to think whether you agree with the now old question:
>
>'are ideologies enshrined in language?'
>
>If you decide yes, as semiologists and feminists and poststructuralists and
>so on of many flavours have thought, then surely you have to say that, yes:
>ascendent ideologies do lurk largely unexamined within language/s. I don't
>see that the use of the singular 'discourse' excludes the possibility of
>variety within that discourse, or that anyone's claiming that you can't
>puncture their apparent invisibility and subliminal infectiousness through
>insight, perspicuity and so forth.
>And then some poets today, or people who write poetry, claim that they see
>it as their task to provide this. Whether the product often or hardly ever
>fits with the intent of its task is another matter.
|