On Tue, 28 May 96 10:22 CDT, Theodora Lightfoot wrote:
>I think we are all ( I include my own last message here) getting a little too
>involved in reading the minds of capitalists, people who perform
>clitoridectomies, etc. I don't personally know anyone in either group, and
>became involved in somewhat unproductive second guessing for rhetorical
>purposes. However, in order to believe that capitalists must necessarily WANT to
>cause poverty because they DO cause poverty, we must believe in a kind of direct
>relationship between intend and result which I find somewhat naive. I am also
>not convinced that Foucault believed in this type of direct and unmediated
>relationship between intent and result, or the direct and unmediated agancy this
>implies. This does not, however, leave out all possibilites for a much more
>limited view of agancy. The idea that bad or repressive results come only out of
>bad intentions is a comfortable one, and that lets all of us off the hook,
>because as we know, we do not have bad intentions. It is more pessimistic, but
>in my opinion, more realistic as well as more in line with Foucault's thought to
>assume that oppressive or horrific results can come out of what appear to be
>neutral or benign intents. That is why a careful look at the relationship
>between language and power is so important.
>
> Dory
>
Your note of caution here is certainly to the point, but I think we should be wary
just as much of the opposite fallacy, which is to assume that radical scholars
are the only ones smart enough to see through the actions of capitalists and
unwind their 'unintended results'. The latter is also a very comfortable idea, intelectually
if not morally. There are two reasons for doubting it. One is that it reiterates the basic
motto that 'power is stupid' and its implication of the hetrogeneity between
power and knowledge. The second is that the discourse of economy, which serves
many functions in the maintenance of poverty, both in it its Smithian 'invisible hand' form,
and in its Marxist critique (parts of which have become commonplaces far beyond Marxism),
is heavily concerned with unintended results and with ways to
influence, and hence to intend, unintended results. We may think perhaps about second degree
'unintended results', i.e. unintended 'unintended results' vs. intended 'unintended results'.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>I think we are all ( I include my own last message here) getting a little too
>involved in reading the minds of capitalists, people who perform
>clitoridectomies, etc. I don't personally know anyone in either group, and
>became involved in somewhat unproductive second guessing for rhetorical
>purposes. However, in order to believe that capitalists must necessarily WANT to
>cause poverty because they DO cause poverty, we must believe in a kind of direct
>relationship between intend and result which I find somewhat naive. I am also
>not convinced that Foucault believed in this type of direct and unmediated
>relationship between intent and result, or the direct and unmediated agancy this
>implies. This does not, however, leave out all possibilites for a much more
>limited view of agancy. The idea that bad or repressive results come only out of
>bad intentions is a comfortable one, and that lets all of us off the hook,
>because as we know, we do not have bad intentions. It is more pessimistic, but
>in my opinion, more realistic as well as more in line with Foucault's thought to
>assume that oppressive or horrific results can come out of what appear to be
>neutral or benign intents. That is why a careful look at the relationship
>between language and power is so important.
>
> Dory
>
Your note of caution here is certainly to the point, but I think we should be wary
just as much of the opposite fallacy, which is to assume that radical scholars
are the only ones smart enough to see through the actions of capitalists and
unwind their 'unintended results'. The latter is also a very comfortable idea, intelectually
if not morally. There are two reasons for doubting it. One is that it reiterates the basic
motto that 'power is stupid' and its implication of the hetrogeneity between
power and knowledge. The second is that the discourse of economy, which serves
many functions in the maintenance of poverty, both in it its Smithian 'invisible hand' form,
and in its Marxist critique (parts of which have become commonplaces far beyond Marxism),
is heavily concerned with unintended results and with ways to
influence, and hence to intend, unintended results. We may think perhaps about second degree
'unintended results', i.e. unintended 'unintended results' vs. intended 'unintended results'.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------