[ilds] baboonism

James Gifford odos.fanourios at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 19:02:15 PDT 2007

You do realize that your analysis repeats the classic questions of 
discourse analysis: what does it include or exclude; for what purpose; 
by whom; how.  Not every scholar asks those questions well, without 
bias, or in agreement with our biases, but I hardly think dismissing the 
practice is a useful move.

 > My suggestion is that the
> so-called theory is in fact a highly tendentious,
 > ideological and in fact extremely narrow-minded,
 > short-sighted and basically unlearned way of
 > looking at history and culture, not to mention
 > literature.

Yes, but don't you say that for a reason, excluding or including certain 
approaches, from a particular social position, and with your own bias? 
This comment is true of bad theory, but should we throw out the good 
stuff too?  I'd rather we were more specific about what is not useful, 
where, and when.

Moreover, let's no forget that a book can have an effect independent of 
the author's intentions.  Analyzing those impacts is a viable as 
analyzing the author's intentions or contexts, though it certainly has 
a motivation.  Choosing to exclude those same things is equally driven 
by a motivation.


More information about the ILDS mailing list