Yes, adjectives can be used as fancy nouns instead of plainer alternatives, but why not use the word "problem" or "debate"? What is gained? And what does it really add to say ideology "works through the manner in which [debate] gets set up"? Is it really the "manner" or are we concerned with the terms of the debate itself? Do we care about the "manner" in which --- the process by which --- it is set up?
The framing of debate is an old device to assure an outcome favorable to one side. Miller Brewing Co. used it in their late "Tastes Great! Less Filling!" commercials, in which one group of people vociferously argued the former position and another the latter --- when the dust settled, Miller Beer was the beer to drink.
>...coming back to the subject of abortion, I'd say that we police ourselves
>and become good subjects by arguing with the Right on the Right's terms:
>"Is abortion 'murder'?"; "Is abortion 'moral'?"; "Are pro-choicers 'rigid'
>and 'inflexible'?"; and ad infinitum.
>
>Kristin Luker...makes an excellent point when she writes the following:
>"Perhaps the most interesting thing...is the fact that modern-day
>subscribers to the first point of view--that abortion is always
>murder--have been remarkably successful in America at persuading even the
>opponents that their view is the more ancient and the more prevalent one"
>(emphasis mine). See, first the Right sets the terrain of ideology, and
>then they ask us to formulate our demands and justifications on that
>terrain. That's their game. We must refuse to play by their rules. (You
>must have read enough Marx & Foucault to get my point here.)...
Remarkably successful? Last time I looked, something like 75% of the American public felt that women should have the right to an abortion. And why should Marx and/or Foucault be necessary? As mentioned above, this is an old game that is actually pretty easy to understand without the pomojectives.
>So, what happened to all that fuss about 'evading the ruse of power,'
>'exceeding the symbolic,' 'questioning the politics of Truth,' and other
>fancy postmodern 'theoretical' maneuvers? Well, what would Dr. Butler say
>about the insistent demand to 'repeat the question and answer it'?
Why should we fuss? Why not just say "challenge assumptions", "question the factual basis of the claims"?
By the way, could you stop sending HTML-ified responses? You are forcing us to deal with your problematic.
Bill