A short introduction: Soft Constrains on genuine discourse
In earlier work (Bar-On, 1989) I discussed severe constrains on the possibility to develop a genuine discourse, a discourse which has a absolute potential of discussbility. I related first to silenced facts which have been eliminated from the discourse but steer it in some hidden way. They create severe restrictions on the development of genuine discourse because we have no clear way to retrieve them into the discourse, making them discussible. While there are many issues we do not discuss usually (like cultural conventions, habits, myths and taboos), they are not causing severe constrains on the development of genuine discourse, as they can be retrieved into the discourse on call. The nature of the undiscussibility of the facts I related to, was of such perceived 'negative' consequences to certain persons' self esteem or public image, that they had to manipulate the discourse in quite a sophisticated way in order to elominate their traces.
I also presented the pure ideological context (Following Zizek, 1989), as a social situation in which one question in relation to facts becomes dominant in the discourse ("What should, ought, must be the facts?"). As the pure ideology is usually coupled with asymmetry of power relations, a strong collectivity and strong sanctions against those who do not comply, it is another form of servere constrain on the development of genuine discourse. I did not claim that silenced facts are used predominantly in the context of pure ideologies. I showed how an abusing father can develop an as-if discourse in his family by making the abuse a silenced fact, and how the other family members join in by "turning their blind eye". I finally redefined normalcy, providing three severe criteria which relate to the severe constrains on developing genuine discourse.
Return to the content of this issue
Return to the Cybernetics and Human Knowing Homepage