Edward R. O'Neill wrote:
 
> In other words, it's a question of paradigms, not of which
> argument is better.  Yes, you can insist that Bergson would
> make a better basis for talking about spectatorship, but
> people aren't going to turn around and do it because there's
> something larger than an argument:  that's a paradigm, and a
> paradigm decides what arguments are relevant.
 
All that said, is this necessarily the best approach to take to something like
film criticism or film theory?  To blindly attach ourselves to the "dominant
paradigm" regardless of what better tools may be available to us?  I think
not.  I understand the notion of paradigms and arguments and the differences
between them, but the position you're advocating seems to me like saying you
can't like country because alternative is the popular favorite (please correct
me if I have misunderstood your position : ).  I have often wondered many of
the same things raised by the initial post.  I for one don't think the
relevancy should be determined by the paradigm, but by the nature of the
question.  Certainly, a phenomenological approach to spectatorship is just as
valid as a psychoanalytic approach...or at least has the potential to be as
valid.
 
Ed Owens
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.