discourses of violence

[Francoise Rosset]

> 
> Yes, it's the "Stalinka" problem all over again: foregrounding of the 
> properties of discourse at the expense of human feelings (and by the 
> way, the builders of that web site have STILL not offered us a 
> justification for its name).

To what possible end? They were not asked for a justification or explanation, 
they were asked to cough up, and I quote, an "apology" -- essentially, the 
whole thing had been judged and adjuticated already. 

If scholarly discourse and inquiry must be subjected to the litmus test of 
whether of not they are conducted at the expense of "human feelings," we now 
are supposed to include the feelings of the writer (whose baggage, you then 
say, should be left out of the final piece), and also of those

> who had survived Soviet 
> violence (or who were close to said survivors, or who were just very 
> involved in the study of violence in Soviet Russia).

I'm not even convinced of the validity of the argument in the first place, let 
alone this elastic definition.

Tony Anemone's objection was sidestepped for an analysis of his formulaic 
language: 
> Tony Anemone says he is "very uncomfortable" with recent postings that 
> urge an avoidance of ideas that might provoke "'some emotional 
> distress'."  Well, yes, but then why is he "very uncomfortable?"  Isn't 
> that a bit like being emotionally distressed? 

Wasn't "very uncomfortable" a polite, formulaic way of saying "I don't like 
it," "this is unacceptable"? But maybe not, and Tony A. does not need me to 
speak for him. 

I'll speak for myself. The actual contents of this discussion, when focused on 
the original subject of violence and discourses of violence, violence and the 
sacred, the diary approach to research, illocutionary and perlocutionary 
effects, aggressor-victim identification, have all been serious, scholarly, and 
fascinating. 

The moral posturing is not. A binary opposition between the heartless 
postmodernist analysis of violence or history, and the compassionate way of the 
psychoanalist-philologist is facile, predictable, and most of all unproductive. 
"Positive" responses confirm this and simply attack the great postmodernist 
beast. (For the record, if your correspondent is going to get fancy accusing 
Foucault of bad faith, it's "mauvaise foi.")
It's like waving the L-word in a conservative arena. 

To dislike postmodernist theory or any other discourse and disagree with it, 
even vehemently, is one thing -- a good thing, as it furthers debate.
To question the right to exist of any scholarly discourse, dismiss the moral 
integrity of its writers, and demand a justification based on some easily 
manipulated notion of "human feelings" (again with the justifying) -- is not.

-FR  



 
-- 
Francoise Rosset
Russian and Russian Studies
Acting Coordinator, Women's Studies
Wheaton College
Norton, MA 02766

Office: (508) 286-3696
FAX:    (508) 286-3640
e-mail: FRosset at wheatonma.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------