Theoretical Stance

My theoretical stance (based on my reading)  is currently as follows:


I am concerned with the complementarity of  Critical Knowledge and 'Random Expressive Flow'  


perhaps Representational <> Performativity






ie their advocates allow space for each and  dont demonise /stereotype each other

I agree with Habermas (Layder pp235) on the need for a Grand Narrative  of  Communicative Rationality (Meta language)

(ie  a rational attempt at establishing agreement on mutual {sustainable) perspective, values and actions.)

and protecting this discussion from  imposed divisive power  (language games) of  Expert interests (Capital) (Efficiency(Lyotard))(Instrumental Rationality)  (problem inversion)(and their language games (both Performatitive(Arts), and Representational ('Science'))

Hence I deny Lyotard and Foucaults attack on "Grand Narratives" (they defeat themselves due to the fact that their attack is itself a grand narrative) 

I do accept  performative (See Butler) post-modern space, as a  space of freedom that may be accessed via certain postmodern performative  techniques... perhaps some aspects/advocates  of postmodern theory are concerned with creating and maintaining these performative spaces and as such for practical reasons necessarily detach themselves from representational and critical stances...

(as a means of maintaing their constructed identities)

I believe these issues  and the techniques of access to the performative need to be de mystified ("Random expressive Flow" being an attempt (from the somewhat obscure "intuition")

Kathleen suggests I should be in the area of post structuralism - refoucault  maybe GiddensStructuration Theory