>
> did any of you types who are what Switala terms "philosophically
> aware" ever hear of hubris? There's something truly frightening
> about the way in which you all patrol this list, passing judgement
> about who is worthy to interpret the great man--who conveniently
> cannot make his own views heard. The balderdash on Chiapas was
> bad enough, but when you Foucultists start in with the abuse
> of Miller and reasoning along the lines of "if ideas are
> accepted so readily then they are not being understood", as
> Katz claims, then it's time to stand back and question just
> what is going here. Foucault was a philosopher so only
> professionally trained philosophers can collect the full
> set of his baseball cards, is that it? You should remember
> that it was the Great Bald One himself who tried hard to
> make his ideas popular, who took part in political activites,
> who gave interviews--he did not spend his time trying to
> act as a gatekeeper or apologist for others.
>Am I the only one who reads this parade of self-satisfied messages
> who is actually trying to use Foucault to enrich his or
> her research, as opposed to reading it because one thinks one can?
>
No.
> Abby, sign me "philosophically challenged and proud of it".
>
I've been subscribed for a month or so now, and have been watching
the posts with some disappointment, for exactly those reasons
mentioned. Although I have not read and therefore cannot comment on
Miller, I do agree that the majority of what seems to go on in this
group can best be described as "self congratulatory."
To decry Miller because of his "uncritical use" of sources (among
other sins) seems to me to miss Foucault altogether. I am not for
"sloppy" scholarship, but I am very much interested in making the
point that Foucault and his methods cannot be considered to be
academic in the usual sense of the term. If one is going to purge
the Foucault literature of KMART impostors, then do so out of a
sensitivity to Foucalt -- not because the Foucault boutique is
embarrassed by the ease with which Miller and his ilk can provide the
same service at a lower price.
To hold Miller accountable to an academic standard without examining
the way in which those standards are themselves to be considered
through a Foucauldian historiography is to move perilously close to
"uncritical scholarship."
Pax 'n Lux
SAH
_______________________
Steven A. Holmes
Artist in Residence
King's Edgehill School
Windsor, Nova Scotia
Canada B0N 2T0
902-798-9483
------------------
> did any of you types who are what Switala terms "philosophically
> aware" ever hear of hubris? There's something truly frightening
> about the way in which you all patrol this list, passing judgement
> about who is worthy to interpret the great man--who conveniently
> cannot make his own views heard. The balderdash on Chiapas was
> bad enough, but when you Foucultists start in with the abuse
> of Miller and reasoning along the lines of "if ideas are
> accepted so readily then they are not being understood", as
> Katz claims, then it's time to stand back and question just
> what is going here. Foucault was a philosopher so only
> professionally trained philosophers can collect the full
> set of his baseball cards, is that it? You should remember
> that it was the Great Bald One himself who tried hard to
> make his ideas popular, who took part in political activites,
> who gave interviews--he did not spend his time trying to
> act as a gatekeeper or apologist for others.
>Am I the only one who reads this parade of self-satisfied messages
> who is actually trying to use Foucault to enrich his or
> her research, as opposed to reading it because one thinks one can?
>
No.
> Abby, sign me "philosophically challenged and proud of it".
>
I've been subscribed for a month or so now, and have been watching
the posts with some disappointment, for exactly those reasons
mentioned. Although I have not read and therefore cannot comment on
Miller, I do agree that the majority of what seems to go on in this
group can best be described as "self congratulatory."
To decry Miller because of his "uncritical use" of sources (among
other sins) seems to me to miss Foucault altogether. I am not for
"sloppy" scholarship, but I am very much interested in making the
point that Foucault and his methods cannot be considered to be
academic in the usual sense of the term. If one is going to purge
the Foucault literature of KMART impostors, then do so out of a
sensitivity to Foucalt -- not because the Foucault boutique is
embarrassed by the ease with which Miller and his ilk can provide the
same service at a lower price.
To hold Miller accountable to an academic standard without examining
the way in which those standards are themselves to be considered
through a Foucauldian historiography is to move perilously close to
"uncritical scholarship."
Pax 'n Lux
SAH
_______________________
Steven A. Holmes
Artist in Residence
King's Edgehill School
Windsor, Nova Scotia
Canada B0N 2T0
902-798-9483
------------------