I actually think the biggest problem with Baudrillard (though it applies to most of the key theorists of the last 30 or so years, Butler included) is that the people who use them or their theories often haven't really read them but are getting third or fourth hand understandings which, while they might sort of make sense when compared to the original, aren't really borne out by the entire argument in the oiginal text. On this account, I am a bit of a traditionalist. I think that there is an original author and text--at least in a technical sense that there is a text one should read in order to come up with the resistant or alternative readings: when one comes up with alternative readings and reappropriates concepts without actually having read them, that's a different process than the poststructuralist indeterminacy of meaning. It's just lazy.
On 12/7/06, B. <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
> How do you feel about Jean Baudrillard?
>
> Circumlocution, or no, or neither?
>
>
> -B.
>
>
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Tayssir John Gabbour
> quoted Slavoj Zizek:
> >
> >> I'm a total Enlightment person. I believe in clear
> >> statements and so on.
> >
> > And remember, when he writes in English, he's not
> writing in his native language.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>