Re: "local" vs "universal" (fwd)

On Thu, 23 Feb 1995, Mario Puga wrote:
I find that Foucault denied us even our local knowledge. For Foucault,
knowledge was relevant to the present through culture, yes, but more so
through history. The history of knowledge, determined by authority, is
the difference. So knowledge must be general to be true. There must be
a conspiracy of sorts. Local knowledge, unless adopted by authority,
remains a mere cultural difference.> > > ----------
Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 21:54:30 +0200
> From: Timo Juhani Siivonen <tsiivone@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: "local" vs "universal"
> Erick Heroux wrote:
> > Foucault did not like the terms of postmodernism, yet he now
> >appears to be pretty solidly within their strategy.
> I think that Foucault's conception of modernity includes the concept of
> postmodern. For example in his "What is Enlightenment" he says that
> Enlightenment (= modernity from his point of view) is "the moment when
> humanity is going to put its own reason to use, without subjecting itself
> to any authority [...]."
> I understand this that we can't rely ourselves on any universalizing
> metanarratives. Modernity is for Foucault an attitude, an ethos, that
> implies "permanent critique of ourselves" "as difference in history". This
> means that the only thing we have, is our local knowledges.
> Timo Siivonen
> University of Jyvaskyla
> Finland
> tsiivone@xxxxxxxxxxxx


Partial thread listing: