At 08:31 AM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
>I know this is a Foucault discussion group, but I do think that this is a
>misrepresentation of Rorty's position. In fact, his democratic pluralism
>is an attempt to expand the signifier of `we' as widely as possible.
>Hence the importance of literature and journalism in his work which he
>sees as providing for the ability to see things from the perspective of
>the `other'.
>
>It also seems a little foolhardy to suggest that Rorty's position within
>the academic hierarchy has everything to do with his academic claims. We
>should not forget the privileged position Foucault acquired within the
>French academy.
And not only the French Academy. Foucault did much work out of
Berkeley, and the Berkeley scene--both academic and
social/recreational--contributed much to his later work. To suggest that
Foucault was not kept fat and happy on institutional money, and that he was
not a member of a decidedly elite bureaucracy is to elide important
historical specificities concerning Foucault's life and career. It is
important that we not see Foucault as some sort of ascetic Saint Michel in
opposition to other (Other?) decadent forms of criticism. Foucault was a
philosopher, and as such he relied upon institution as much as any academic.
Therefore, there is a lot of 'wee' in Foucault, but he is just better at
hiding it than most.
James Stanger, University of California at Riverside
>Kevin D. Haggerty - haggerty@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>University of British Columbia, Dept. of Anthropology/Sociology
>On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Joe Cronin wrote:
>
>> I think Richard Rorty is a fat slob. His advocation of
>> pluralism is nothing but a whiny defense of teh "democratic"
>> structures that have kept his belly full for a number of
>> years. (as long as you ask). The "we" he has in mind are
>> teh bureaucratic elite - and fortunately, there is very
>> little of this "wee" in Foucault's work.
>I know this is a Foucault discussion group, but I do think that this is a
>misrepresentation of Rorty's position. In fact, his democratic pluralism
>is an attempt to expand the signifier of `we' as widely as possible.
>Hence the importance of literature and journalism in his work which he
>sees as providing for the ability to see things from the perspective of
>the `other'.
>
>It also seems a little foolhardy to suggest that Rorty's position within
>the academic hierarchy has everything to do with his academic claims. We
>should not forget the privileged position Foucault acquired within the
>French academy.
And not only the French Academy. Foucault did much work out of
Berkeley, and the Berkeley scene--both academic and
social/recreational--contributed much to his later work. To suggest that
Foucault was not kept fat and happy on institutional money, and that he was
not a member of a decidedly elite bureaucracy is to elide important
historical specificities concerning Foucault's life and career. It is
important that we not see Foucault as some sort of ascetic Saint Michel in
opposition to other (Other?) decadent forms of criticism. Foucault was a
philosopher, and as such he relied upon institution as much as any academic.
Therefore, there is a lot of 'wee' in Foucault, but he is just better at
hiding it than most.
James Stanger, University of California at Riverside
>Kevin D. Haggerty - haggerty@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>University of British Columbia, Dept. of Anthropology/Sociology
>On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Joe Cronin wrote:
>
>> I think Richard Rorty is a fat slob. His advocation of
>> pluralism is nothing but a whiny defense of teh "democratic"
>> structures that have kept his belly full for a number of
>> years. (as long as you ask). The "we" he has in mind are
>> teh bureaucratic elite - and fortunately, there is very
>> little of this "wee" in Foucault's work.