Just to elaborate a little further (whilst trying hard not to vent any
spleen on what I think the problem with studying the ways in whihc people
lie is
I can't think of a reference off hand, but there is a strong
contemporary theory in evolutionary circles which suggests that the very
purpose of language - indeed of communication - is to lie. After all, from
the evolutionary perspective (not that it need be directly applicable to
the problem at hand;
the structure of the point remains just so long as you accept that people
compete) we are all trying to get one over on each other, and what better
way than by subtly spreading misinformation, and what better way to spread
misinformation than by including some useful information. An arms race
ensues in which language is used to glean as much as possible from the
opposition and defeat their attempts to gain information about us. The
point is, for present purposes, that the notion of lying is as subtle and
ingrained in everything we do as of talking. Since an historians entire
purpose is to examine what people have said about things, and since they
seek to decieve with every word they say, the historian is left with
little material
when discussing lies specifically. I guess from this point
of view you could define a lie as what happens when one does something so
grossly unsubtle that they are found out. But that, of course, is only one
theoretical standpoint.
Colin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|