On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:34:00 -0400 kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote:
> here i'm wrestling with the problems of the demands of transparent social
> relationships in the idealized realm of what amy guttman calls "conscious
> social reproduction". this, as lefties, is often our goal: the conscious
> understanding of how we order our lives together. ken has an objection to
> it on lacanian grounds, but i flesh it out a bit differently.
I have a problem with the notion that consensus creates legitimacy. Do I think agreement is possible? Do I think that agreement provides a motivation for action? Yep. I simply disagree that consensus or understanding provides any kind of *authority* in moral or political discourse. It leads to power, yes, but this is ill-conceived if we see it as "good" or "just." The question of transparency is, in a way, the wrong question. What is transparent? What is "well thought through?" A conversation provides a means of further signification (ie. more dialogue). This isn't the glassification of discourse, rather, a working through, with clunky blocks, a problem of speaking qua desire.
ken