Dear Mbayiha,
if I understood right, due to your 'looser' definition F. is a Marxist, not
because he does a critique of political economy (3), nor because he practiced
dialectic methods (2), BUT for he had a materialist conception of history.
Let me ask one question at this point: if we take the definition from your
quotation (M's materialist conception of history as a (quasi?)-theory of
social evolution which is to be rendered by historical analysis of a
particular social formation), this *seems* quite near to what F did. But - did
he really, in philosophical means, analyse *social* formation, not rather
formations which are constitutive for what we call social? I mean, if the
'subject' (human) is in F's theory an *effect* produced by multiple
power/knowledge-structures, can we say (from a dialectic, - i.e. marxist's ;-)
point of view) that *social* effects constitute the subject? Isn't 'social'
(read: objectivity) a concept that already requires the concept of
'subjectivity' (the society and it's human, or v.v.)? This is why I'm not
shure that F's historical analysis is compatible to M's. I'd like to hear some
other voices on this, but I'm afraid they're all on holiday.
The more serious problem I see is that your definition is too loose, even
though I liked the idea that Plato and Hegel where marxists because of
point (2). :-)
By the way, I think what you call nexus is an effect of dialectics
itself - the connection of microanalysis, spotting the smallest parts you
find, and conceptualisation, which means letting this smallest parts
communicate with their concepts. This would show the problems a) of dividing
the three departments (connecting them with logical AND) and b) of
transforming this logical AND to a logical OR. The last process (b) executes
what the first (a) just intended - dividing a whole without putting it
together again. IMHO it's never a good idea to do an undialectical analysis of
dialectical thoughts. Anyway, Foucault-List is the wrong place to discuss
dialectical implications, I guess.
Benjamin
___________________________
Netzadresse:
joeriben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
if I understood right, due to your 'looser' definition F. is a Marxist, not
because he does a critique of political economy (3), nor because he practiced
dialectic methods (2), BUT for he had a materialist conception of history.
Let me ask one question at this point: if we take the definition from your
quotation (M's materialist conception of history as a (quasi?)-theory of
social evolution which is to be rendered by historical analysis of a
particular social formation), this *seems* quite near to what F did. But - did
he really, in philosophical means, analyse *social* formation, not rather
formations which are constitutive for what we call social? I mean, if the
'subject' (human) is in F's theory an *effect* produced by multiple
power/knowledge-structures, can we say (from a dialectic, - i.e. marxist's ;-)
point of view) that *social* effects constitute the subject? Isn't 'social'
(read: objectivity) a concept that already requires the concept of
'subjectivity' (the society and it's human, or v.v.)? This is why I'm not
shure that F's historical analysis is compatible to M's. I'd like to hear some
other voices on this, but I'm afraid they're all on holiday.
The more serious problem I see is that your definition is too loose, even
though I liked the idea that Plato and Hegel where marxists because of
point (2). :-)
By the way, I think what you call nexus is an effect of dialectics
itself - the connection of microanalysis, spotting the smallest parts you
find, and conceptualisation, which means letting this smallest parts
communicate with their concepts. This would show the problems a) of dividing
the three departments (connecting them with logical AND) and b) of
transforming this logical AND to a logical OR. The last process (b) executes
what the first (a) just intended - dividing a whole without putting it
together again. IMHO it's never a good idea to do an undialectical analysis of
dialectical thoughts. Anyway, Foucault-List is the wrong place to discuss
dialectical implications, I guess.
Benjamin
___________________________
Netzadresse:
joeriben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx