No / Traditional Millian theory posits that free speech is the most important mechanism to achieve a greater tolerance of difference and thus create a dynamic marketplace for truth to flourish. In responding to maledictive hate, theorists such as Gelber (2002) and Butler (1997) have recommended that marginalized speech actors engage with a process of speaking back, of returning the gaze to make perpetrators¿ contributions to the marketplace of ideas marginal and aberrant. However, as will be demonstrated by an analysis of maledictive force and effects, the ideal speech situations of communicative action theory, and the recasting of terms of abuse by ¿speaking back¿, require both rational speech actors ¿something clearly absent in many acts of maledictive hate¿and an institutional validation of the authenticity of marginalized subjects and their speech. Constructing new truths in the marketplace of ideas is both socially and politically contingent. As such, the capacity for marginalized subjects to contribute to the marketplace rests on their ability to be able to speak with authority and to be authorized to speak.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BRADFORD/oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/3894 |
| Date | 02 1900 |
| Creators | Asquith, Nicole |
| Publisher | Praeger |
| Source Sets | Bradford Scholars |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Book chapter, published version paper |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds