Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: November ::
Re: Politics
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 7.0782.  Friday, 1 November 1996.

(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 22:42:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0778  Re: Politics

(2)     From:   Sean K. Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 10:05:40 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0778  Re: Politics


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996 22:42:41 -0500
Subject: 7.0778  Re: Politics
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0778  Re: Politics

As I read the words "politics" and "political" in this debate, I'm beginning to
believe that they have little relationship to the definitions found in the OED
(which I checked today).  I think "political" may here mean "culturally
constructed."

And since everything we do and have is "culturally constructed" in one way or
another, it is a truism to say that Shakespeare's play are "political," i.e.,
culturally constructed.

"Political" seems to be losing any precise reference, and it is used more as a
rallying cry than as a meaningful category.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean K. Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 31 Oct 1996 10:05:40 -0800
Subject: 7.0778  Re: Politics
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0778  Re: Politics

> To paraphrase Wm. James, perhaps "pure" reading of the texts is posssible, but
> where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet is it to be found?

That's not the point.  To say that it something is never found in a "pure"
state, with no admixture of anything else, is only to say that it participates
in our world.  It doesn't deny that such a thing (say, reading of the texts)
*is*.

To use an analogy, just because we never encounter pure oxygen, or straight
lines, in nature, is not to deny that oxygen or straight lines *are*.  Nor does
it stop us from debating and exploiting them, if only as abstractions or
ideals, in our various disciplines.

Cheers,
Sean.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.