>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."
Hi Ken -- I'm right now writing about consent. Talk to me about consent. It's got to be a valid concept hasn't it, somehow detachable from this public sphere consensus model? Not legislation about consent I guess, but an ethical conception of consent? I think I mean -- can you have consent without contract? I concede the 'consent to...' of consent bothers me then, as well as its articulation in terms of majority. But don't you/we/someone have to be responsive to the ethical imperative that people be allowed to consent or withhold consent? Ah then that bothers me too, it's always this dichotomy isn't it. Consent is really about not consenting...
I know I know I failed to do my teaching Zizek report and all, but I'm feeling so confused about all this, I'd love to talk about it without the demand not to sound confused.
Tell me something Lacanian about it all so I can disagree. Or let's bond over not being Habermasian, or something. What think you on the subject of consent?
Catherine