As someone on lbo-talk said, "privileging" a group's interpretation of reality and society is a function of power. If you've got the power, you want the power to be legitimate, i.e., accepted by others. (If you're the dominant class, you want your ideology to dominate too.) Of course, legitimation increases the dominant group's power, creating a virtuous circle for them and a vicious one for the dominated.
a separate point: I've found that some interpret efforts at rational argumentation as being efforts at "privileging" a world-view. silly.
Jim D.
===============
And who, pray tell, gets to define what rational argumentation is? :-)
I once saw two physicists, one a Nobel Prize winner, nearly destroy an overhead projector in the course of intense and very abstract/rational argument debating the minutae of Bell's theorem. The invective was palpable in the room.
We need to learn a lot more about our brains/bodies before we can come to some consensus on just what rational argumentation consists in/of.
Ian
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk