Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:12:19 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Organization: |
UCLA |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I need to clarify something.
> 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.
Ed Owens wrote:
> 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 was not suggesting that paradigms should be adhered to
without questioning them. The original question was about
why phenomenological and other approaches had been less
dominant. In the passage above, I was trying to explain why
the phenomenological approaches had not gained the upper
hand; I was not urging 'blind' adherence.
In other words, I was urging a certain view of intellectual
history, not making a case for one argument over the other.
Indeed, one way of stating my point is that it is *never* a
question of simply deciding which theory is better, because
this has already to some extent been pre-decided.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA
Sociology/General Education
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.
|
|
|