Re: Re:

thanks for the reply.
I just finished reading a book by Francois Furet. Foucault recommends him
for a better understanding of the notion of revolution and the french rev..
He is totally against it. Foucault himself never cared about the out coming
of any social mouvment. What he really cared for was the attitude of people
during the revolution/social mouvment. For him, as for Kant, what is
important is the "enthousiasme" for the revolution and the role of the
intellectual is to provoque that "enthousiasme" in people, to create the
will for the revolution, to go pass the limits, no mather what the results
be! In other word, what counts , is the will for the mouvment no mather
what course it takes. He does not believe in progress after all! At least in
the last version of his interpretation of "What is Enl...?"
I wonder if according to F., there is not any other way for people to
experience this "enthousiasme" (why not by dancing for ex.?!) and to create
a new ethos as dandy as "l'ethos Beaudelairien".
As far as the iranian revolution, permit me to say that is was a political
suicide for whoever supported it, including Foucault (and myself as an
activist at that time!). I honestly think he/we had no idea about
Khomeyni's believes . F. didn't know a least what he was talking about,
when he said that there is no hierarchies in Islam!!!! etc.... etc...
As far as why this subject matters? Well, this is a personnel interest of
mine to understand how big the gap is between theories and practices?
F's trip to Iran, is for me his way of practicing his idea of
"l'intellectuel specifique" , and this notion is one of which distinguishes
him from for example from Sartre or marxists intel. well, if this is the
result of a " analyse foucaldien" (i.e. to fall for the islamic
revolution) then why bother at all? Nationalists and Marxists, with all
their fanaticism were able to analyse better that mouvment than Michel
Foucault !!!!

Thanks all for reading.

a bientot


At 04:16 PM 3/12/96, you wrote:
>Received: from jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU by;
> Tue, 12 Mar 96 16:16 CDT
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> (8.7.1/8.6.6) id MAA39386 for foucault-outgoing;
> Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:54:07 -0500
>Received: from (
> []) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6)
> with SMTP id MAA15051 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:53:57 -0500
>Received: from diez (
> by with SMTP id AA15168 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4
> for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>);
> Tue, 12 Mar 1996 18:52:58 +0100
>Message-Id: <199603121752.AA15168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 18:52:58 +0100
>From: (Thomas Diez) <Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Re:
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>X-Sender: tdiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Precedence: bulk
>> By now we all know that all members (inc.myself) would like even
>>love !! to have texts in french. Let's get on with this.
>>I was wondering what the hell was going on in F.'s mind while endorsing
>>iranian revolution of 1979? He is against revolutions any way! Isn't there
>>any other way in F's mind for people to change their " ethos" except a
>>political suicide?
>I wonder whether Foucault really is/was against revolutions (and, also,
>whether this matters anyway). I remember reading an interview, I guess it
>was in the German edition of the Dreyfus/Rabinow book where he dealt with
>his engagement. If I recollect the passage correctly, he was asking
>(himself) for constant revolution, for constant movement, for a constant
>struggle against hardened power structures. The point here seems to be that
>Foucault was not heading a revolution, imposing some revolutionary will, but
>doing what he in his personal circumstances could to help others speak. That
>that strategy had its shortcomings in that particular setting was
>acknowledged by F. in the mentioned interview. Also, concerning the
>"political suicide": For one, at the moment the revolution was happening one
>can hardly say that people conceived of it as being such a suicide (and I
>would insist on not judging historical events - at least not solely - based
>on our contemporary world-constructions); second, even now it seems to me
>that not everyone would agree that it was a political suicide, and thus the
>question rather would be: what discursice forces connect with the judgement
>of whether the revolution was a suicide.
>Best wishes,
>Thomas Diez
>Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
>Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung
>D-68131 Mannheim
>Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
>Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435


Partial thread listing: