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 grasping 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
No comments:
Post a Comment