At 12:31 AM 9/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I can only offer one piece of advise with regard to Foucault. I'm a grad
>student who is doing his dis on Foucault and has come up against an
>impenetrable wall. Most scholars feel that "true" scholarly research entails
>looking at the author's work(s) and explicating the texts. With Foucault,
>there is much in the way of interviews and personal opinions. Don't ignore
>Foucault's interviews as they can sometimes offer a clearer meaning than his
>texts. To those scholars who dismiss this method as irrelevant or
>"uncolloquial" I have to disagree. when there is an ambiguity or a
>contradiction, why wouldn't one look to the author. To hold one to one's
>written word when a meaning is unclear is inauthentic and irresponsible. Polit
>ics, Philosophy, Culture is an excellent piece of work and one I highly
>recommend to all who have an interest in Foucault.
>
>
I agree strongly with what you're saying here. However, what about the
many Foucault interviews where he's being totally flippant, saying
things like, "I'm not a real historicist, but nobody is perfect, etc.."
In other words, if you're using Foucault's interviews, then you've
got a real dilemma that you wouldn't find in interviews with many other
people -- Foucault can often be contrary, contrite, and down right
capricious! Rather than explaining a contradiction or ambiguity, I've
often found his interviews to create them! How does this work in with
your idea that the use of interviews is already somewhat problematic, or
"uncolloquial" in "academic" discourse?
-n
--
Nathan Miserocchi Gratuitous Quote:
Dept of English "We must understand being -- being, which
Univ of Michigan may no longer itself be called a being,
being, which does not occur as a being
**** among other beings but which nevertheless
nmiseroc@xxxxxxxxx must be given and in fact is given in the
**** understanding of being." -Derrida's Dad
>I can only offer one piece of advise with regard to Foucault. I'm a grad
>student who is doing his dis on Foucault and has come up against an
>impenetrable wall. Most scholars feel that "true" scholarly research entails
>looking at the author's work(s) and explicating the texts. With Foucault,
>there is much in the way of interviews and personal opinions. Don't ignore
>Foucault's interviews as they can sometimes offer a clearer meaning than his
>texts. To those scholars who dismiss this method as irrelevant or
>"uncolloquial" I have to disagree. when there is an ambiguity or a
>contradiction, why wouldn't one look to the author. To hold one to one's
>written word when a meaning is unclear is inauthentic and irresponsible. Polit
>ics, Philosophy, Culture is an excellent piece of work and one I highly
>recommend to all who have an interest in Foucault.
>
>
I agree strongly with what you're saying here. However, what about the
many Foucault interviews where he's being totally flippant, saying
things like, "I'm not a real historicist, but nobody is perfect, etc.."
In other words, if you're using Foucault's interviews, then you've
got a real dilemma that you wouldn't find in interviews with many other
people -- Foucault can often be contrary, contrite, and down right
capricious! Rather than explaining a contradiction or ambiguity, I've
often found his interviews to create them! How does this work in with
your idea that the use of interviews is already somewhat problematic, or
"uncolloquial" in "academic" discourse?
-n
--
Nathan Miserocchi Gratuitous Quote:
Dept of English "We must understand being -- being, which
Univ of Michigan may no longer itself be called a being,
being, which does not occur as a being
**** among other beings but which nevertheless
nmiseroc@xxxxxxxxx must be given and in fact is given in the
**** understanding of being." -Derrida's Dad