Glad to see this conversation begin.
I have to confess that as I reread this book, and new criticisms
join the ones I've heard since the first time, I'm still amazed at the
prose, the sweep, and the ambition of the text.
Bryan Alexander Department of English
email: bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418 Ann Arbor, MI USA 48103
fax: (313) 763-3128 http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Jim Underwood wrote:
> >I'll start: if we assume that the prefaces (esp. the second) are
> >descriptions of method, what happens to class and the state?
> >Bryan Alexander
>
> (Working from Vintage Books,1994 - in English, I have a Forward to English
> Edition followed by a Preface - I assume "second" is the one that starts
> by classifying animals)
Yes.
>
> But then, I've no idea what "happens" to class and state. I suppose "The
> fundamental codes of a culture " (p xx) are somehow connected with the
> state - but are they class specific? are they the "essence" of hegemony?
> Where are class and state anyway so that something could "happen" to them?
I'm working from a neoMarxist stance, considering class to be extremely
important and deterministic, and the state as semiautonomous and vital.
So I'm interested in how Foucault describes these organizations of
thought that *seem* confined to intellectual history (Borges, Bouffon,
etc.), but also seem aimed at a larger society. Are these effects of
socioeocnomic change? I can read my view of the capitalist crisis and
inception of ca. 1800 into this, and see these as effect - but this
doesn't seem convincing. And:
>
> I have a big problem around here (p xx) anyway. F seems to be drawing a
> kind of continuum where culture (folk knowledge?) is on one end and
> scientific/philosophical knowledge is on the other. And the "true" order
> can sometimes be glimpsed in the middle. (I can't believe this IS what
> he's saying, but it sure sounds like it.)
Hard to pin this down.
>
> It seems to me that this approach objectifies scientific knowledge - he
> says elsewhere he doesn't want to do history of science - but how can he
> avoid it?
>
> More confusing, is this "underlying order" meant to be unchangeable. Or is
> this the "positive unconscious" of knowledge (p xi) - which seems to
> undergo sudden changes as we move from (say) the Classical to the Modern
> era?
>
> The whole thing seems to have a lot more Kant in it than I could accept.
Interesting. Can you expand on this?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Underwood
> Department of Information Systems phone +612 330 1831
> University of Technology, Sydney fax +612 330 1807
> PO Box 123,
> BROADWAY 2007 e-mail: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> AUSTRALIA
> http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/
>
>
>
------------------
I have to confess that as I reread this book, and new criticisms
join the ones I've heard since the first time, I'm still amazed at the
prose, the sweep, and the ambition of the text.
Bryan Alexander Department of English
email: bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418 Ann Arbor, MI USA 48103
fax: (313) 763-3128 http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Jim Underwood wrote:
> >I'll start: if we assume that the prefaces (esp. the second) are
> >descriptions of method, what happens to class and the state?
> >Bryan Alexander
>
> (Working from Vintage Books,1994 - in English, I have a Forward to English
> Edition followed by a Preface - I assume "second" is the one that starts
> by classifying animals)
Yes.
>
> But then, I've no idea what "happens" to class and state. I suppose "The
> fundamental codes of a culture " (p xx) are somehow connected with the
> state - but are they class specific? are they the "essence" of hegemony?
> Where are class and state anyway so that something could "happen" to them?
I'm working from a neoMarxist stance, considering class to be extremely
important and deterministic, and the state as semiautonomous and vital.
So I'm interested in how Foucault describes these organizations of
thought that *seem* confined to intellectual history (Borges, Bouffon,
etc.), but also seem aimed at a larger society. Are these effects of
socioeocnomic change? I can read my view of the capitalist crisis and
inception of ca. 1800 into this, and see these as effect - but this
doesn't seem convincing. And:
>
> I have a big problem around here (p xx) anyway. F seems to be drawing a
> kind of continuum where culture (folk knowledge?) is on one end and
> scientific/philosophical knowledge is on the other. And the "true" order
> can sometimes be glimpsed in the middle. (I can't believe this IS what
> he's saying, but it sure sounds like it.)
Hard to pin this down.
>
> It seems to me that this approach objectifies scientific knowledge - he
> says elsewhere he doesn't want to do history of science - but how can he
> avoid it?
>
> More confusing, is this "underlying order" meant to be unchangeable. Or is
> this the "positive unconscious" of knowledge (p xi) - which seems to
> undergo sudden changes as we move from (say) the Classical to the Modern
> era?
>
> The whole thing seems to have a lot more Kant in it than I could accept.
Interesting. Can you expand on this?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Underwood
> Department of Information Systems phone +612 330 1831
> University of Technology, Sydney fax +612 330 1807
> PO Box 123,
> BROADWAY 2007 e-mail: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> AUSTRALIA
> http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/
>
>
>
------------------