>
> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
When I spoke of the "common principles of liberalism" (such things as the
belief in reason as the distinctly human trait and its powers, pursuit of
knowledge, belief in science, progress, equality, democratic government and
more), I was
referring to the
type of abstraction that any conceptualization of an ideology must undergo.
When one is attempting to define an "ideology", in a Marxist sense, one must,
in some fashion, define the common elelmets which are believed to construct
the social consciousness of society. Ideology, in a Marxist sense, is indeed
a type of umbrella phenomenon (super-structure) that is conceptualized to
spread over the mass of social consciousness. For example,the ideology of
liberalism (the mass ideology of capitalistic society), I
believe, Marx would argue, is responsible for workers and capitalists
accepting that they are rational, self-interested individuals for whom it is
quite natural to fulfill one's self-interest. Such a rational pursuit of
self-interest is the fuel which powers the engine of capitalism. I do
not believe it is 'simplistic' to argue that Marx believes that such
ideological elements are widespread and common to the mass of society (this
is Marx's analytic/dialectic of society, not mine). Foucualt denies that
ideology/discourse works on such a widespread basis. That is why he prefers
the term discourse to ideology, because ideology represents mass socialization
via some mass ideas, and also brings to mine an innate consciousness that is
somehow alienated or repressed by ideological and material forces. Discourses
are envisioned by Foucualt to be quite particular, occuring in many different
forms, for many different purposes, and resulting in many different effects at
the level of subject construction (that is why there is such an array of
subjectivites in any given society). Since Foucualt is discussing the
subjection of individuals (that which produces their unique identities,
sexualites, desires, etc.), rather than the alienation or oppression of
humanity (the workers), he cannot use ideology as an analytic tool (it
is too general and widpread to explain the type of individuating
subjugation that he is describing). Foucualt gives many critiques of
Marxism, as a theoretical tool, in which he criticizes it in these terms.
My way of describing Foucault's position on ideology may have been simply
done in such a short message, but my understanding of Foucualt's problem
with ideology as an analytic tool is not simplistic (common, understandable
language does not automatically equate to simplistic thinking, it might
instead represent clarity of thought, and an ability to break down
complex ideas into understandable discourse). Foucualt may indeed have offered
a rather simplified reading of Marx on the question of ideology, but I
think I have done a good job of accurately portraying Foucualt's critique of
Marx on this topic. I believe your criticism is better reserved for Foucualt,
if you find such a critique simplistic, rather then myself, a humble messenger.
> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
When I spoke of the "common principles of liberalism" (such things as the
belief in reason as the distinctly human trait and its powers, pursuit of
knowledge, belief in science, progress, equality, democratic government and
more), I was
referring to the
type of abstraction that any conceptualization of an ideology must undergo.
When one is attempting to define an "ideology", in a Marxist sense, one must,
in some fashion, define the common elelmets which are believed to construct
the social consciousness of society. Ideology, in a Marxist sense, is indeed
a type of umbrella phenomenon (super-structure) that is conceptualized to
spread over the mass of social consciousness. For example,the ideology of
liberalism (the mass ideology of capitalistic society), I
believe, Marx would argue, is responsible for workers and capitalists
accepting that they are rational, self-interested individuals for whom it is
quite natural to fulfill one's self-interest. Such a rational pursuit of
self-interest is the fuel which powers the engine of capitalism. I do
not believe it is 'simplistic' to argue that Marx believes that such
ideological elements are widespread and common to the mass of society (this
is Marx's analytic/dialectic of society, not mine). Foucualt denies that
ideology/discourse works on such a widespread basis. That is why he prefers
the term discourse to ideology, because ideology represents mass socialization
via some mass ideas, and also brings to mine an innate consciousness that is
somehow alienated or repressed by ideological and material forces. Discourses
are envisioned by Foucualt to be quite particular, occuring in many different
forms, for many different purposes, and resulting in many different effects at
the level of subject construction (that is why there is such an array of
subjectivites in any given society). Since Foucualt is discussing the
subjection of individuals (that which produces their unique identities,
sexualites, desires, etc.), rather than the alienation or oppression of
humanity (the workers), he cannot use ideology as an analytic tool (it
is too general and widpread to explain the type of individuating
subjugation that he is describing). Foucualt gives many critiques of
Marxism, as a theoretical tool, in which he criticizes it in these terms.
My way of describing Foucault's position on ideology may have been simply
done in such a short message, but my understanding of Foucualt's problem
with ideology as an analytic tool is not simplistic (common, understandable
language does not automatically equate to simplistic thinking, it might
instead represent clarity of thought, and an ability to break down
complex ideas into understandable discourse). Foucualt may indeed have offered
a rather simplified reading of Marx on the question of ideology, but I
think I have done a good job of accurately portraying Foucualt's critique of
Marx on this topic. I believe your criticism is better reserved for Foucualt,
if you find such a critique simplistic, rather then myself, a humble messenger.