... the language of entitlement to information that I describe in this book is both apologetic and critical. It is far from being a monoloithic aid to the powerful, an immutable system of oppression, a functionally determined expression of the interests of a particular class, or the dynamics of a particular stage in economic development. In fact, one of the more interesting things revealed by this study (and by the study of history in general) is the polysemic and open quality of languages of entitlement. This indeterminate and multivocal quality of our moral traditions seeems to me to be a good, rather than a abd, thing. in fact, it may have a positive but theoretically neglected role to play in cultural criticism. if there is indeed a sybiotic relationship between social praactices and the systems of thought that describe for them and prescribe for them, now can we ever criticize? Why doesn't norm simply follow the contours of fact, like a chair cover following the outline of a chair? Part of the answer I think, is that there is not just one set of cultural practices, one set of norms, and one set of interpretations. To put it another way, the indeterminacy within justificatory systems and the simultaneous existence of conflicting justificatory systems are two important reasons thatb we can make normative criticisms in the first place. Freedom is often to be found in the tension between traditions. this could be called the postmodern qualification.

SSS p.190