Stanley Fish seeks to destroy the pretensions of those who want to
change society with reference to historical theories or ideals. Logically, such
people must be hypocrites, or at best, believers in divine revelation. And
logically, Fish cannot condemn them, because to do so would be to assume that
he alone can stand aside and say: ‘Your politics are disingenuous.’ After all, how
would he know?
Hearkening
to me, from my point of view, is supposed to lead to nothing. As I say in Doing What Comes Naturally in answer to the question ‘What is the point?’, the point is
that thereis no point, no yield of a positive
programmatic kind to be carried away from these analyses. Nevertheless, that point (that there is no point) is the point because it’s the promise of such a yield – either in
the form of some finally successful identification of a foundational set of
standards or some program by which we can move away from standards to
ever-expanding liberation... it’s the unavailability of such a yield that is my point, and therefore it would he contradictory for me to have
a point beyond that point. People go absolutely bonkers when they hear that, but
that’s the way it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment