Sorry to jump in here so late. But, I am increasingly becoming aware of the
possibility of a residual 'proto-positivism' that seems to inhabit
Foucault's work and which is becoming more and more apparent, through the
course of this discussion vis-a-vis the "actual past". In an early posting
Malcolm, I think, stated:
>But, of course, this
> means that those events are, in themselves, *meaningless*.
Given that meaning is a human category then this claim is unproblematic.
However, if it is being suggested that we can just construct any narrative
of the past and its only function is to serve an ideological role in the
present, then it seems mistaken. Given that the existence of an "actual
past" seems to have been accepted by all. Then the question of the adequacy
of a particular narrative will depend not only on the ideological stance of
the narrator and/or audience. Precisely because there is an "actual past"
that the "actual present" tries to give meaning to, entails that,
potentially, some narratives may more accurately catch something, a glimpse
perhaps, of the "actual past". All history is revisionist history, but if
the idea that what determines whether some narrative gets accepted or not is
simply our ideological stance then these seems to fly in the face of the way
'*interpretation*, an effective truth, a chapter in a genealogy.' function.
Consider, for example debates about the holocaust. Did it "actually happen"
or did it not? The ideological battle that provides the ground for such
debates is of course an important element in attempting to answer this
question, but so is the evidence. And, even on good liberal grounds, one
would be forced to examine the evidence and reach a reasoned assessment.
That is, I 'think' that given the evidence available it happened.
Nonetheless, I still waste my time reading the literature that denies it.
Given an ideological acount of narrative selection, why do I do this?
Sometimes the evidence is just so overwhelming that no ammont of ideological
posturing can gain widespread credence, thankfuly. Moreover, the denial of
such evidence also lays bare the rampant ideological stance that underpins
the denial, those exposing it as rhetoric and thus leading to its rejection.
>It doesn't have to be a priori or a posteriori. It could, instead, be an
>*interpretation*, an effective truth, a chapter in a genealogy. . . !
But even this reply, failed to address the question. Redescription does not
mean the same thing as resolution.
>
>To speak of these things in terms of a priori and a posteriori is to use
>a language that Focauldian thought has more or less rejected. While this
>is not an attempt to ban this terminology, I for one would need to be
>convinced of the usefulness or relevance of this terminology--of why I
>should "unreject" it.
This rejection and believed (un)usefulness of certain terms, may well itself
be a form of ideological distortion. The idea of a complete break from a set
of practices, and/or terms makes no sense on a Foucaultian reading. This
brings me to Foucault's 'proto-positivism'. This becomes clear on various
levels. But to mention only a few.
1) Foucaults attack on the subject, particularly in his early work, is
in accord with the positivist denial of the subject. See Hume, Avenarius,
Schlick. What was behaviouralism but a denial of of any form of subjectivity.
2) Foucault's latent commitment to the fact/value distinction. Most
clearly evident when he declares that he has no position on particular
medical practices, but is "merely describing" the way things are.
3) His dismissal of the notion of cause as mystical or magical. This is
classic positivism. See, for example Hume on this.
4) This is related to 3 but, Foucault, following the positivists seems
to be concerned with the *concrete* and opposed to any form of
'metaphysical' speculation as to 'why' things are such and such a way.
What do others think?
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
possibility of a residual 'proto-positivism' that seems to inhabit
Foucault's work and which is becoming more and more apparent, through the
course of this discussion vis-a-vis the "actual past". In an early posting
Malcolm, I think, stated:
>But, of course, this
> means that those events are, in themselves, *meaningless*.
Given that meaning is a human category then this claim is unproblematic.
However, if it is being suggested that we can just construct any narrative
of the past and its only function is to serve an ideological role in the
present, then it seems mistaken. Given that the existence of an "actual
past" seems to have been accepted by all. Then the question of the adequacy
of a particular narrative will depend not only on the ideological stance of
the narrator and/or audience. Precisely because there is an "actual past"
that the "actual present" tries to give meaning to, entails that,
potentially, some narratives may more accurately catch something, a glimpse
perhaps, of the "actual past". All history is revisionist history, but if
the idea that what determines whether some narrative gets accepted or not is
simply our ideological stance then these seems to fly in the face of the way
'*interpretation*, an effective truth, a chapter in a genealogy.' function.
Consider, for example debates about the holocaust. Did it "actually happen"
or did it not? The ideological battle that provides the ground for such
debates is of course an important element in attempting to answer this
question, but so is the evidence. And, even on good liberal grounds, one
would be forced to examine the evidence and reach a reasoned assessment.
That is, I 'think' that given the evidence available it happened.
Nonetheless, I still waste my time reading the literature that denies it.
Given an ideological acount of narrative selection, why do I do this?
Sometimes the evidence is just so overwhelming that no ammont of ideological
posturing can gain widespread credence, thankfuly. Moreover, the denial of
such evidence also lays bare the rampant ideological stance that underpins
the denial, those exposing it as rhetoric and thus leading to its rejection.
>It doesn't have to be a priori or a posteriori. It could, instead, be an
>*interpretation*, an effective truth, a chapter in a genealogy. . . !
But even this reply, failed to address the question. Redescription does not
mean the same thing as resolution.
>
>To speak of these things in terms of a priori and a posteriori is to use
>a language that Focauldian thought has more or less rejected. While this
>is not an attempt to ban this terminology, I for one would need to be
>convinced of the usefulness or relevance of this terminology--of why I
>should "unreject" it.
This rejection and believed (un)usefulness of certain terms, may well itself
be a form of ideological distortion. The idea of a complete break from a set
of practices, and/or terms makes no sense on a Foucaultian reading. This
brings me to Foucault's 'proto-positivism'. This becomes clear on various
levels. But to mention only a few.
1) Foucaults attack on the subject, particularly in his early work, is
in accord with the positivist denial of the subject. See Hume, Avenarius,
Schlick. What was behaviouralism but a denial of of any form of subjectivity.
2) Foucault's latent commitment to the fact/value distinction. Most
clearly evident when he declares that he has no position on particular
medical practices, but is "merely describing" the way things are.
3) His dismissal of the notion of cause as mystical or magical. This is
classic positivism. See, for example Hume on this.
4) This is related to 3 but, Foucault, following the positivists seems
to be concerned with the *concrete* and opposed to any form of
'metaphysical' speculation as to 'why' things are such and such a way.
What do others think?
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------