How so?
> The second is on the
> level of word construction. The terms materiality and reality are
> being used as synonyms when they clearly aren't.
Materiality and reality aren't being used as synonyms here, they're just being put in analogous positions.
Anyway, there's no need to rely on the word "reality." You could do it this way:
> In relation to the gas chambers, then, if one concedes the materiality
> of the
> gas chambers, does not that very conceding operate
> - performatively - to materialize those gas chambers? And further, how
> is it
> that the reiterated concession of that Holocaust - one which need not
> take place in speech or writing but might be "signaled" in a much more
> inchoate way - constitutes the sedimentation and production of that
> material effect?
By being offended you're proving my point, which is that no matter how committed a person thinks they are to this constructivist brand of soi-disant radicalism, they will always stops short as soon as what's being "interrogated" is something whose reality -- sorry, "extra-discursive quality" -- they feel to be important.
On a moral level, there is no analogy since questioning the r_____y of the Holocaust is detestable while questioning the r_____y of sex is merely silly. But at an epistemological level, they're equivalent.
Seth