ext_370085 ([identity profile] ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] spoonless 2010-10-19 11:46 pm (UTC)

In my opinion, healthy skepticism and critical thinking naturally leads one to a pro-establishment point of view.


That's completely ridiculous. Not only is it conceptually flawed, but it's completely hegemonic. Have you read Foucault? With your interests in gender, I suspect Foucault's discursive genealogies would be on your radar... And Judith Butler, too, for that matter. Neither of which would suffer such foolishness as you've suggested above.

And insofar as the "rightness" of establishmentarianism or "science", I can't bear to struggle through this dialogue with you again. Now that I'm even more deeply immersed in the literature of cultural studies, critical ethnography/sociology, and discourse analysis, your position seems about as tenable as young Earth creationism. You've really no idea, and you've been prevented from having any idea by the discursive regimes of truth that have shaped your subjection. All I can do is encourage you to problematize your prejudice and suggest domains of thoughts which could add coherence to your worldview. To that end, Foucault's study in sexuality might help immensely, but then again his studies in psychiatry might be more directly applicable insofar as critique of the "rightness" of establishmentarianism science. Either way, it's also intriguing to note that from a Lacanian angle your position here conveys a great deal of self-lothing and abjection. More rabbit holes to chase...

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting