I did not say that a history whose authority lies in historiographic
criteria is bad *because* its ideolological. This is because I don't
think ideology is bad. Ideology is unavoidable. Foucault, in an interview
(I don't remember which one - I think it's in "Remarks on Marx"), talks
about his distrust of the term ideology because it's invariably set in
opposition to some notion of "truth". Now, I would like to preserve the
term, but dispense with the "truth" (a la Spivak and certain passages in
Althusser). Any telling of history is ideological, and even the
historiographical criteria by which one would decide on which ideology a
particular history partakes of are themselves ideological. There's no
escaping it, just like there's no escaping power - viz, my post several
days ago. It's not a matter of being non-ideological - it's a matter of
picking one. Ideology is, like power, neither good nor bad. There are bad
ideologies and good ideologies, and which ones I choose to put in which
category depends entirely upon my perspective on the present.
To make it perfectly clear: it is not that those histories that are
ideological are bad and those that are political are good. This, of
course, is a non-sensical claim. All histories are ideological - and the
ones that serve *my* ideology are good, and the ones that serve my
opposing ideology are *bad*. And the same holds true for everybody, I
think, if only because people are not likely to take up a history whose
function is contra their interests. People are not likely to agree with
what they disagree with. And everybody has a poltical position within
this culture - everybody is positioned within it in some way, and from
this position will follow interests.
Excuse my repetition, but I thought all this was clear.
la lucha continua
malcolm
criteria is bad *because* its ideolological. This is because I don't
think ideology is bad. Ideology is unavoidable. Foucault, in an interview
(I don't remember which one - I think it's in "Remarks on Marx"), talks
about his distrust of the term ideology because it's invariably set in
opposition to some notion of "truth". Now, I would like to preserve the
term, but dispense with the "truth" (a la Spivak and certain passages in
Althusser). Any telling of history is ideological, and even the
historiographical criteria by which one would decide on which ideology a
particular history partakes of are themselves ideological. There's no
escaping it, just like there's no escaping power - viz, my post several
days ago. It's not a matter of being non-ideological - it's a matter of
picking one. Ideology is, like power, neither good nor bad. There are bad
ideologies and good ideologies, and which ones I choose to put in which
category depends entirely upon my perspective on the present.
To make it perfectly clear: it is not that those histories that are
ideological are bad and those that are political are good. This, of
course, is a non-sensical claim. All histories are ideological - and the
ones that serve *my* ideology are good, and the ones that serve my
opposing ideology are *bad*. And the same holds true for everybody, I
think, if only because people are not likely to take up a history whose
function is contra their interests. People are not likely to agree with
what they disagree with. And everybody has a poltical position within
this culture - everybody is positioned within it in some way, and from
this position will follow interests.
Excuse my repetition, but I thought all this was clear.
la lucha continua
malcolm