godfry n. glad

Phew!

Thank you both kenaz and Jacob for your responses.

Just so you have an understanding of where I'm coming from, I've a background in history (U.S. and Asian) as part of my education for my master's in teaching secondary social studies. Of course, I got through the whole program without so much as a single class in either historiography or philosophy of history. I'd say I was educated by those whom Munslow would refer to as "reconstructionists", with a few of the younger professors probably being "constructionists". Throughout it all, I harbored the suspicion that the claims of "objectivity" amongst those in the field were self-delusional. It's my view that true objectivity is nigh on to impossible, particularly in the humanities and the "social sciences".

The full force of the post-structuralist critique had not yet filtered through to the students at that time at that institution, but the professors were known to issue challenges to the packed classrooms...with statements like, "You're not one of those relativists, are you?" I was pretty sure I probably was, but I didn't know for sure. At the time, I kept my head down and my mouth shut....big mistake.

So... I consider myself sympathetic to the deconstructionist critiques of mainstream historians and their philosophical assumptions (as I understand them), but lack the fuller understanding of the nature of the epistemological and methodological critiques. I'd like to know more. That's why I'm reading Munslow and White. And, engaging in this exchange.

But, I'll tell you, much of what I read by those who acknowledge their post-modernist, post-structuralist base seems to be obfuscatory polemic, rather than enlightening discourse. Also, I'm still wondering why the post-structuralist's deconstructive process should be considered any more privileged than the processes of those they critique?

Then, kenaz asks of me:

"How much knowledge or anything for that matter, comes to us unsullied, unmediated, unsocialized, unedited, unbiased?"

My opinion: None. Next question: How do we deal with that?
The post-structuralists are no better than their predecessors....at least in my opinion. Why should I give their discourse more creedence than those whom they critique?

I cannot judge whether Foucault is incomprehesible to me or not, having not attempted to read his work. But it is my understanding that his work was originally produced in French and any of us limited to reading that work in English are dependent upon a translation. It is my suspicion that any work in translation suffers from inherent problems due to the inadequacies of expression between the two languages. How can we really understand Foucault if we're relying upon another interpreter's understanding of his thought? My perception is that to attempt to understand Foucault without being fluent in French would rely upon another interpreter....which is a plunge into a linguistic pit trap.

Is that not accurate?

It seems to me that if we take the position of the post-structuralists with regards to their own work, we will eventually arrive at that place where we are stating that all knowledge is subjective and relative and true learning is ineffable.

If that's the case, why the "f" are we even engaged in the discourse?

That's what I meant with my question of how the post-structuralist position is significantly different from solipcism?
That is where is seems to lead...

Have I missed something along the way that contradicts that?

godfry

Ted Hoffman

Because they leave no stone unturned. Nothing is unquestionable. All assumptions that form the superstructure of our explanatory models are reexamined and put on the spotlight.

With Decon, we get to have refreshing, new, and boundless ways of thought and reasoning. We are no longer limited to some artificial mould.

If ur really interested in reading Focault, you either learn French or read the translated copies. I think you confuse 'translated' with 'interpreted'. If anything is lost on translation, I am sure its not much to warrant failing to read the works on that account alone.

True learning, objective perception/reasoning and correct expression are not the same thing.

Dont you think our background colours our perception and interpretation of events, and taint our reasoning?

Vernon K Robbins argues that the "we" passages in Acts and other books were a stylistic device employed by the sea-faring communities. His poing being that socio-economic and cultural way of life influences our manner of discourse and perharps, even thought.
To find out the "flaws" in our reasoning, the cracks in our explanatory models, and to broaden possibilities and expose false dichotomies and dilemmas.

Celsus

Apologies Peter, I've been much too busy at the moment to post to this thread, though I fully intend to. There's another offshoot at a different forum that I haven't even got round to reading yet.
I may consider it, but I've had hardly any time spent on reading recently. My priorities, unfortunately, lie elsewhere at the moment.

Joel