sorry for the cyberburp

Sorry, folks, about the last message I sent to the list; I was trying to
compose a reply to something in that note and accidentally sent it to the
list before I ever got around to editing it and replying :( Please igore it.

In any case I was going to respond to Tristan's "response to my response"
which was part of the mess I ended up sending to the list -- instead of
quoting his entire post, I'll just sum up what I was going to say here.
Since it's pretty clear to me that Tristan Riley never read my response,
there's no need to draw out this "debate" any further.

So, to frame it simply, No, I don't assume that others on this list have
the same political commitments as I do. I don't expect, for example, the
"fascist" Foucaultian, the capitalist Foucaultian, or the misogynist
Foucaultian to agree with me. But there *are* certain material conditions
that overdetermine the spheres we inhabit, no matter what your political
commitments. These are not debatable, really; the international division
of labor, for example, is an empirical *fact*. Someone like Tristan may
scoff at the idea of an oppositional commitment such as mine, and may even
enjoy the material privileges conferred by this international division (or
by patriarchy, or by capitalism, or by surveillance). All I did was point
out that we are caught up in these structures; if Tristan, or anyone else,
thinks capitalism and patriarchy are "good" things, then I have very
little to say to them. As for Foucault's political committments, I do not
know nor particularly care what they "really" were. I find Foucault's
work explosive and liberating at times; but there are also cerrtain
cathected moments that I find weak and even dangerous (for example, his
brief reference to the "bucolic pleasures" of child molestation in _HOS_,
or his claim to let the working classes "speak for themselves" in the
chat with Deleuze). And finally, I don't agree that Foucault was totally
unselfreflective about his work (I think Miles Jackson wrote this), and
even if he was that was his problem not ours. But in fact there are
moments of lucid self-reflection peppered throughout his work, esp. his
interviews. (Of course there are also unself-critical moments too, such
as the aforementioned conversation with Deleuze, or his reaction to
Jacques-Alain Miller's hostile cornering). In any case though, I'm not
sure how self-reflection is part of a "neoChristian" ethic. But I do find
it both "necessary" and "useful."


Partial thread listing: