It is relevant, I think. If you see the current world situation as an ideological war, Western liberal democracy vs. Fundamental militant Islam, a debate on how ideas shape reality and reality shapes action is important. If we replace the government in Iraq without altering the worldview of the Iraq people it will be not be a sustainable change.
Well, I'm not particularly into indoctrination. Moreover, as I understand the Iraqi situation, it's multiple realities: the Kurds in the north, the Shias in the south, and the Sunnis in the middle. Lots of different religious views and, no doubt, underneath it all, several different views of the proper relation of church and state.
The more I think about your formulation the more I find it kind of ironical. One of the starting points, at least one of the French starting points for pomo, was a conviction that the meta histories were defunct--Marxism, Christianity, Democracy, you name it. Any history which presumed to have tapped the secrets of the universe, of human life, to have some privileged lock on the universal truth of things, the notion was something like, "we are all tapped out guys, let's think smaller thoughts. As humans, we've slaughtered millions in the names of these truths and we haven't done a helluva lot to improve the human condition. Perhaps made it worse. See Eric Hobsbawm's wonderful history of the short 20th Century.
Kuhn is a distinctly different kettle of fish.
Geez, I'm rambling. Haven't had a bit to drink. It's not really possible to seriously discuss the kinds of formulations you are proposing on a thread in which the best rhythm is the short, punchy post, the one that takes all of two minutes to compose. |
