Caricaturing and Categorising in Processes of Argument

Abstract

Charges of caricature have been levelled recently by contributors to this journal in the course of their conducting debates about epistemological questions. The argument developed here is that these charges themselves express different epistemological positions. In exploring these differences, I indicate my preference for seeing the term ‘caricature’ as a symbolic device pleading for experimentation with alternative avenues of argument, rather than as a representational device referring to ‘the fact’ that someone has misread some text. Concerning my own categorising of these epistemological differences, I suggest that in the course of debate (including processes of categorisation) one cannot avoid expressing certain preferences, but that the fragile grounding of these preferences should be acknowledged.