Someone is speaking to you. You listen, empathise and feel you 'understand.'
Perhaps he has purported some d ideological vision. Which perhaps out of politeness is left unquestioned. So one listens without questioning the foundations of where the speaker got his ideas.
This person who has spoken to you made some judgements in his speech.
So where do these judgements come from?
For many the judgements stem from a strong historical determinism. ‘Politics,’ is the umbilical cord, and the politics that engendered the ideas can neither be avoided nor positively embraced; these impossible alternatives are superficially different ways of the political, of holding it in one’s hand, whereas properly understood, the political – the inescapability of partisan, angled seeing – is what always and already grasps us.’ History also ‘grasps’ us. We can’t grasp it. As Stanley Fish argues the same holds for speech:
Absent some already-in-place and (for the time being) unquestioned ideological vision, the act of speaking would make no sense, because it would not be resonating against any background understanding of the possible courses of physical or verbal actions and their possible consequences. Nor is that background accessible to the speaker it constrains; it is not an object of his or her critical self-consciousness; rather, it constitutes the field in which consciousness occurs, and therefore the productions of consciousness, and specifically speech, will always be political (that is, angled) in ways the speaker cannot know