Hilary Lawson's "exposure theory" posits that the world is inherently unknowable, and our access to it is limited to the representations or "exposures" of it that we construct through language, culture, and other forms of mediation. While there may be some truth to this claim, it is also possible to argue against it.

First, exposure theory assumes a radical divide between the world and our knowledge of it, which may not accurately reflect the way we experience reality. In practice, our knowledge of the world is often based on a dynamic interaction between our perceptions and our concepts, rather than a strict separation between the two.

Second, exposure theory also implies that our knowledge of the world is entirely arbitrary and culturally constructed, which overlooks the possibility of objective knowledge. While our knowledge of the world is undoubtedly shaped by cultural and linguistic factors, it is also possible to arrive at shared truths about reality that are independent of these factors.

Finally, exposure theory may lead to a kind of relativism that undermines the possibility of meaningful ethical or political action. If our knowledge of the world is entirely mediated by language and culture, then it may seem that any ethical or political claims we make are simply expressions of our own subjective perspectives. However, it is possible to argue that certain ethical and political claims are objectively valid, based on shared values or principles that are not simply relative to individual perspectives.

In sum, while exposure theory raises some important points about the limitations of our knowledge of the world, it also overlooks the possibility of objective knowledge and may lead to a kind of relativism that undermines meaningful action.