Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
I finished my undergrad not too long ago. My thought is, if you have a
classroom full of students whom you wish to be critical thinkers, give them
the straight source. Otherwise, they are constantly second guessing the 2nd
party (like Giddens, ugh!) and feel uncomfortable with what they are
analyzing. beyonf Foucault there are so many questions that just waste
precious, expensive time. Does Giddens have an agenda? How shrouded is it?
Who speaks more here, Foucault or Giddens?.... etc. It's a real pain in the
you know what. I had several classes with Foucault's work as subject matter,
and found the direct apporach the best.
If one is concerned that the student won't GET the material, please consider
the following. Are their some cultural/educational/class barriers a part of
this? If so, don't give up on these folks. Let us not further
disenfranchise those of us who could make GREAT use of Foucaultian analyses
in our academic/daily lives! His work can truly aid us in
reordering/restructuring how we look at ourselves/identity (IMHO, and that is
based on my interpretations of Foucault). So don't be selfish with your
knowledge of Foucault. If you need to spell out some basic premises (or
questions), please do so! The critical thinking can be taught along with,
and after, presentation of these premises. Do students a favor, all
students; not just the ones accustomed to reading this type of material.
Secondary sources are just more camouflage to burn through. I think that
classrooms often become led by professors who have a little too much power,
ego and patriarchal undercurrents flowing through their veins, even the most
well intentioned. I say all this because Foucault _can_ be a tool for those
who need him the most.