On Sun, 28 Jul 96 23:33:15 -0500, Samuel A. Chambers wrote:
>I think Derrida's recent work "Specters of Marx," provides one line of thinking
>Foucault's relation to Marxism. Derrida argues that at this period in history
>when so many continue to write about "the end of history" (and Derrida spends
>perhaps too many pages taking apart Fukuyama) we have a responsibility to the
>legacy of Marx that we all inherit. He insists that Marxism be pluaralized;
>there are many marx(s) and we must carefully decide to which spirit of marx we
>will respond. Derrida's own choice is to delineate a spirit of Marxism that's
>quite in line with his own thinking of deconstruction as justice itself (a sort
>of messianic eschatology that still seems to me to be in its infancy in
>Derrida's thinking). Along these lines, Derrida attempts to articulate a
>non-metaphysical "historicality" that can only come "after" "the end of
>history." To skip quite a bit, this "historicality" owes a lot to a
>Nietzschean/Foucaultian history of effects.
I too was much impressed by 'Spectres'; another line of thought that Derrida
pursue in this work which is relevant here, is exactly the question of Fukuyama.
Now, Fukayama is one of a large chorus that reiterates the theme of Marx's
'inadequacy', that history 'proved' Marx wrong. Derrida underlines this as
an act of exorcism, exorcising the 'spirit' of Marx, that which in Marx
keeps returning as a revenant to haunt capitalism at the apex of its victory. Put
simply, if Marx was so much off the mark, why do the ideologues of capitalism
feel compelled (obssessed?) to rebury him every so often? The 'spirit' of Marx
is justice in the sense of an unpayed debt, the unpayed surplus value, if one wishes,
which Derrida likens to Hamlet's unavenged dead father, capitalism's bad
conscience.
>
>My point is that if one follows Derrida through in this thinking of a certain
>spirit of Marxism, then one certainly needs to re-consider Foucault's relation
>to Marxism. No doubt, a Foucaultian thinking must reject a scientific marxism,
>a telelogical conception of history, and (as Foucault puts it) any Marxist
>"economism." However, this is not to say that one rejects Marx when one takes
>Foucault seriously. Indeed, one may reject "Marxism," but (to repeat an
>oft-quoted phrase) even Marx said he was not a "Marxist."
Rejecting teleology is one of F. important corrections of Marxism. However,
I am not sure that what a Foucaldian reading should reject in Marx should be termed
'scientific'. I would rather call it dogmatic, or ideologic. How would you regard in
this respect Bourdieu's 'updating' in "The social space and the Genesis
of Groups", Theory and Society 14/6 1985, where he adressed this exact
issues raised in this thread, i.e. the concepts of class, class consciousness,
Marx's inadequacy, etc.?
To cite Bourdieu (ex tempore), "Marx wanted to be counted
a scientist, and the best homage we can do him is to surpass his science."
If we leave out the desire to correctly (truely) describe the conditions of opression and
the possibilities of resistence and change, and I take science to mean here the full
application of the will to know with all its present sophistication, we are left with a vague
yearning for a better world. This is what Marx most criticised in the 'utopists'.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>I think Derrida's recent work "Specters of Marx," provides one line of thinking
>Foucault's relation to Marxism. Derrida argues that at this period in history
>when so many continue to write about "the end of history" (and Derrida spends
>perhaps too many pages taking apart Fukuyama) we have a responsibility to the
>legacy of Marx that we all inherit. He insists that Marxism be pluaralized;
>there are many marx(s) and we must carefully decide to which spirit of marx we
>will respond. Derrida's own choice is to delineate a spirit of Marxism that's
>quite in line with his own thinking of deconstruction as justice itself (a sort
>of messianic eschatology that still seems to me to be in its infancy in
>Derrida's thinking). Along these lines, Derrida attempts to articulate a
>non-metaphysical "historicality" that can only come "after" "the end of
>history." To skip quite a bit, this "historicality" owes a lot to a
>Nietzschean/Foucaultian history of effects.
I too was much impressed by 'Spectres'; another line of thought that Derrida
pursue in this work which is relevant here, is exactly the question of Fukuyama.
Now, Fukayama is one of a large chorus that reiterates the theme of Marx's
'inadequacy', that history 'proved' Marx wrong. Derrida underlines this as
an act of exorcism, exorcising the 'spirit' of Marx, that which in Marx
keeps returning as a revenant to haunt capitalism at the apex of its victory. Put
simply, if Marx was so much off the mark, why do the ideologues of capitalism
feel compelled (obssessed?) to rebury him every so often? The 'spirit' of Marx
is justice in the sense of an unpayed debt, the unpayed surplus value, if one wishes,
which Derrida likens to Hamlet's unavenged dead father, capitalism's bad
conscience.
>
>My point is that if one follows Derrida through in this thinking of a certain
>spirit of Marxism, then one certainly needs to re-consider Foucault's relation
>to Marxism. No doubt, a Foucaultian thinking must reject a scientific marxism,
>a telelogical conception of history, and (as Foucault puts it) any Marxist
>"economism." However, this is not to say that one rejects Marx when one takes
>Foucault seriously. Indeed, one may reject "Marxism," but (to repeat an
>oft-quoted phrase) even Marx said he was not a "Marxist."
Rejecting teleology is one of F. important corrections of Marxism. However,
I am not sure that what a Foucaldian reading should reject in Marx should be termed
'scientific'. I would rather call it dogmatic, or ideologic. How would you regard in
this respect Bourdieu's 'updating' in "The social space and the Genesis
of Groups", Theory and Society 14/6 1985, where he adressed this exact
issues raised in this thread, i.e. the concepts of class, class consciousness,
Marx's inadequacy, etc.?
To cite Bourdieu (ex tempore), "Marx wanted to be counted
a scientist, and the best homage we can do him is to surpass his science."
If we leave out the desire to correctly (truely) describe the conditions of opression and
the possibilities of resistence and change, and I take science to mean here the full
application of the will to know with all its present sophistication, we are left with a vague
yearning for a better world. This is what Marx most criticised in the 'utopists'.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------