Re: De Certeau on Foucault

Greg,

I wonder how far you would like to run with this particular form of rampant
particularism?

What stop at disecting capitalism, or Liberlaism and splitting them into the
various elements and particular forms? Are Foucault's own resting places,
the clinic etc., any more coherent on this reading than your oversimplified
reading of marxism. The generality of your own reading of Foucault precludes
you from a seeing the irony in your own account when you declare:

>"liberalism" be broken down to represent its various
>>forms, its offshhots, its varying degrees of acceptance on a host of
>>common principles,

Might I not now ask, in good Marxist fashion: 'What are the 'common
principles you so easily allude to? What makes all of these various forms of
Liberalism still Liberalisms? Have you provided any new angles or simply
redescribed what is already known? And known and acknowledged in Marx's own
thought at that. The incoherence and simplicity of such a position as you
seem to advocate would simply not do for Marx. But then I am not claiming
that your position is that of Foucault.

--------------------------------------------------------
"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)


Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA

--------------------------------------------------------



Folow-ups
  • Re: De Certeau on Foucault
    • From: Gregory A. Coolidge
  • Partial thread listing: