Read the full article which is published on Philosophy Bits (external link)We expect people to be rational and their actions to follow a consistent set of principles. When we discover something that contradicts those principles, we criticize their behaviour. We expect the other to be responsive to our critique, for we feel they ought to value consistency just as we do.
When we point out instances of clear hypocrisy — where actions directly contradict previously demonstrated beliefs — we expect an explanation to be provided and changes to be made. When these are not forthcoming, our frustration increases. We cannot understand how the other is unable to see the problem we are seeing.
But pointing out hypocrisy is the worst kind of criticism. It shifts the focus to mere consistency, rather than concentrating on the goodness (or lack thereof) of the actions themselves. For consistency is irrelevant when it comes to assessing whether or not particular actions are good ones. By focusing on hypocrisy, we waste our energy on petulant critiques that make us feel superior instead of trying to address the causes of wrongdoing.
Poststructuralism as a Regime of Truth: Foucault and the Paradox of Philosophical Authority
Foucault’s critique of power and knowledge shaped poststructuralism, yet its rejection of truth risks becoming its own orthodoxy. To remain...
