Touche Michael! Actually I read something about that again yesterday in Clare's book:
'Sometimes Foucault deliberately fails to mention his sources for strategic reasons or simply for his own amusement - to catch people out. Karl Marx is usually the target in these instances. In the 1960s to cite Marx was to make an ideological statement, to declare a position in relation to one of the reigning schools of Marxist thought which had dominated intellectual life since the end of World War II in France. Foucault did not wish to align himself with, or even directly against, any of these schools of thought. Neither did he wish to ignore what Marx's work had to offer. As for catching people out, he remarks that during the 1960s:
"it was good form... to cite Marx in the footnotes. So I was careful to steer clear of that. But I could dredge him up... quite a few passages I wrote referring to Marx... [I didn't cite him] to have some fun, and to set a trap for those Marxists who pinned me down precisely on those sentences. That was part of the game".
(O'Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault, London: Sage, p. 5)
Of course, there are those on the Australian Research Council who will recognise the concepts even when the name Foucault is not mentioned but hopefully the lay-people who were appointed to the council by the previous Minister of Education to sniff out "postmodern" project applications won't... mind you, anything to do with social justice seems to smack of "postmodernism" in the neoliberal mindset!
Linda J. Graham
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
CRICOS No 00213J
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael bibby" <shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] How do we use Foucault texts in teaching?
> <see comments embedded in text>
> --- "Linda J. Graham" <ljgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Lisa,
>> This is a really interesting question/diversion. In
>> Australia, I don't think we are as far down the
>> bureacratisation of teaching and teacher ed as the
>> US but there is a strong backlash against anything
>> smelling remotely "postmodern". This has resulted
>> in very strong suggestions that we remove the "F"
>> word from govt research grant applications (believe
>> it or not this is a reference to Foucault, not the
>> other F word - that could probably still fly!). The
>> trick it seems is to get the concepts in but not
>> name them.
> Foucault once said that he would quote Marx without
> citing him, disguise Marx's concepts in forms that are
> prima facie unreconizably Marxist.
> The other thing I've seen work is
>> secondary citations - the work of philosophers of
>> education (i.e. Michael Peters and the like).
>> The same applies to teacher ed in a way. Although I
>> guess this is "un-truth telling". I was teaching in
>> a core unit last year which is pretty much based on
>> Foucauldian principals but the thing is that only a
>> bare minimum of students would go away and read
>> three chapters of D&P, or some of Rose's Governing
>> the Soul - about half didn't even read the unit text
>> (which I found an entertaining read!). Those that
>> did read some Foucault were like deer in headlights
>> - it was very hard for them to relate what they were
>> reading to anything else in their teacher ed course
>> (or life for that matter) because everything they'd
>> been learning was decontextualised and discretely
>> packaged in line with the requirements set out by
>> regulatory bodies - the standards of any teacher
>> education program as you describe.
>> My way around that was (in the very, very short
>> tutorial times we had) was to explain the
>> connections by way of analogy and concept (and
>> groovy drawings on the board). I even got the F
>> word into a developmental psychology class "not
>> everything is bad but everything is dangerous"...
>> although I was never invited back to that one! The
>> more scripted our work becomes or the more we move
>> to on-line environments the harder this gets to do -
>> which I guess, is where you're at?
>> I'd be very interested to hear more about the
>> constraints that limit your work in this area.
>> Linda J. Graham
>> Centre for Learning Innovation
>> Faculty of Education
>> Queensland University of Technology
>> Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
>> CRICOS No 00213J
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Lisahennon@xxxxxxx
>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:34 PM
>> Subject: [Foucault-L] How do we use Foucault texts
>> in teaching?
>> Hi, I've always tried to avoid discussions of
>> moderation because the procedures obscure the
>> issues, at least for me. Instead, I have a very
>> open-ended question for the list serve. I would not
>> consider myself a Foucault scholar, but I do use his
>> work in my own research in education and teacher
>> education. At a time when U.S. educators are held
>> to standards of procedure, especially the reductive
>> notions of "good teaching practices" and
>> "outcome-based" research, I find it nearly
>> impossible to incorporate Foucault into my teaching
>> for prospective teachers. I teach a History of
>> Education course and find ample opportunities there,
>> but in other teacher education courses, I confront a
>> rather Foucaultian obstacle of failing to meet the
>> standards of "truth-telling" as required by any
>> teacher education program. Any thoughts?
>> Lisa Hennon
>> Foucault-L mailing list>
>> Foucault-L mailing list
> On Yahoo!7
> Dating: It's free to join and check out our great singles!
> Foucault-L mailing list