a reply from a student from my university
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:27:34 -600 (CST)
From: Jim Hollis <ug035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mario Puga <ug034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: philosophy club <coombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gr049@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
keyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pepin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ug049@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
ug059@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Foucault and Fascism (fwd)
Hhhmm. . . a "Fascist Foucaultian." A most interesting twist to a
perplexing thought process. A "Fascist Foucaultian" would seem an
impossibility simply because Fascism does not seem marginalized enough
for Foucault. Fascism is a system of the "extreme right" which calls for
the dictatorship by the same (consult The American Heritage Dictionary).
Now, does a dictatorship sound like Foucault? Clearly not. Foucault
would surely recommend that the "panoptican" is merely a function of
fascism because they share a common goal. . . to control. Foucault would
surely suggest that the limit experience should and can be obtained
differently for everybody. Fascism implies that choice is not a matter.
For Foucault and the Marquis de Sade, S/M is a game played by consenting
individuals (although certainly not necessarily for de Sade, so I'll
stick with Foucault) where the people involved may end their involvement
at anytime. Fascism implies that it would always be the dominator. S/M
implies that the dominator can also easily become the dominated. These
are just some of the practices of S/M. Foucault would therefore, I
believe, have to say that Fascism is only possible partly in S/M, and
even then in some moderation, and thus acceptible for Foucault. Fascism
seems possible only in playing the game.
Jim Hollis
ug035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
San Antonio, TX
Our Lady of the Lake University
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:27:34 -600 (CST)
From: Jim Hollis <ug035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mario Puga <ug034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: philosophy club <coombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gr049@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
keyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pepin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ug049@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
ug059@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Foucault and Fascism (fwd)
Hhhmm. . . a "Fascist Foucaultian." A most interesting twist to a
perplexing thought process. A "Fascist Foucaultian" would seem an
impossibility simply because Fascism does not seem marginalized enough
for Foucault. Fascism is a system of the "extreme right" which calls for
the dictatorship by the same (consult The American Heritage Dictionary).
Now, does a dictatorship sound like Foucault? Clearly not. Foucault
would surely recommend that the "panoptican" is merely a function of
fascism because they share a common goal. . . to control. Foucault would
surely suggest that the limit experience should and can be obtained
differently for everybody. Fascism implies that choice is not a matter.
For Foucault and the Marquis de Sade, S/M is a game played by consenting
individuals (although certainly not necessarily for de Sade, so I'll
stick with Foucault) where the people involved may end their involvement
at anytime. Fascism implies that it would always be the dominator. S/M
implies that the dominator can also easily become the dominated. These
are just some of the practices of S/M. Foucault would therefore, I
believe, have to say that Fascism is only possible partly in S/M, and
even then in some moderation, and thus acceptible for Foucault. Fascism
seems possible only in playing the game.
Jim Hollis
ug035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
San Antonio, TX
Our Lady of the Lake University