Abstract
This paper responds to criticism of some of my work by Douglas Robinson. After pointing out some factual problems in his response, I agree with Robinson that my 2014 views on agency and complexity can be expanded, and show how I have done so since then. I then engage with the kind of hermeneutics Robinson uses in his response to my work, arguing that it is a contextless, affect-driven hermeneutics that bases too much of its argument on matters of identity. I try to explain what I find problematic with constructivist arguments, and to offer a complexity approach that overcomes the binary between idealism and realism. I also question Robinson’s claim that he needs to ‘correct’ me where I am ‘wrong’, relating this strange loop in his hermeneutics to his own epistemological stance.
Reference41 articles.
1. Bandia, Paul. 2008. Translation as Reparation: Writing and Translation in Postcolonial Africa. Manchester: St Jerome.
2. Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. London: Duke University Press.
3. Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2011. Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
4. Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.
5. Cronin, Michael. 2017. Eco-translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New York: Routledge.