Barker rehashes the history of Cultural Studies as a post-disciplinary field highly influenced by Marxism and ending up in a post-structuralist, post-modern, and anti-representationalist consensus. Interestingly, Barker advocates a Cultural Studies that understands all language games as fictional and all transcendent/universal truth non-existent, and yet continues to be socially active and advocating for a "revolution in thinking (Barker 2003: 430). To bridge this gap, Barker points to the neo-pragmatism of Tony Bennett and Rorty.
Extended Thoughts:
It is at this point that I have to get off of the post-modern, post-structuralist train. Barker seems to advocate a hit and miss operation of advocating for a better world and the ending of oppression. Barker points to the values of multiculturalism (appreciation of difference) as the key to a better future. However, I don't think that he has provided the kind of philosophical conviction or basis to counter those who do not appreciate diversity and difference. What of those points of view that are sadistic and hate-filled; are we to "appreciate" them? At the end of the day I just don't think that declaring all language as "fictional" paves the road towards fighting evil. If one cannot define evil then how is one to fight it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good questions, I'm glad you're wrestling with this stuff. One thing I'm hesitant on is the steps we take in order to approach an understanding of evil, hesitant so that we don't create an oppressive definition that makes an enemy out of the wrong thing. But ultimately, I still think we need to take the steps.
Post a Comment