Some people and philosophers seem to see individual human activity as arising, not from interaction between individuals, but from interactions between social groups - that is, what gives rise to the behavior of individual men and women is the dymanic between men and women, as social groups. They see people's motivations as rooted in power, never in lust or greed or any other emotion (or if they do, these emotions are reduced to expressions of power). Everything is symbolic - wars are started not for resources, but in order to impose realities and dominate discourse.
My question is this: isn't this all a bit far-fetched? A man who flirts with a woman doesn't seem to be doing so because he feels compelled to exert sexual power over her in accordance to patriarchal discourse; he thinks she's cute. The media doesn't distort information in order to control the all-immersing hyperreality we all live in; individuals simply simplify and exaggerate stories to gain more viewers. What is it that makes this metanarrative of "human behavior as discourse of power" credible? How real are these sorts of hypothetical, structural explanations, when they don't seem to leave room for human falliability, diversity, narrow-mindedness, interest, emotion and irrationality?
Read another response by Oliver Leaman
Read another response about History