Re: Foucault vs. Chomsky: PO MO? PO STRUC?

I am a little confused as to how What is En. categorizes F. as Postmodern.
I appreciate some comments on this.

At 06:24 PM 10/6/96 GMT, sbinkley@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 6, 1996 12:55:03 PM, Omar Nasim wrote:
>>--Thankyou very much for all the responses, however I was suprised at
>>this one the most. I was always under the impression that Foucault was a
>>post-structuralist and a post-modern, not because he said he was, but
>>because his works labled him as such. He did not believe in the
>>categorization of though and ideas into little names and stuff, that is
>>probably why he never called himself anything. But from the way he
>>presents his ideas, his very thoughts, his genre is post-modern and
>>post-structuralist. His work "What is the Englightment" is a very clear
>>work that classifies him as a post-modern. I might be seperating the
>>author from the work, but i think thats what Foucault whats....
>>I could very wrong about this, so i neeed your input...
>>Omar Nasim
>>Department of Philosophy
>These are very important questions which people often pass over too
>carelessly. What precisely is the difference between structuralism, post
>structuralism and post modernism? And where does F belong in this scheme?
>Well I think it's fair to say that structuralism represents a distinct
>shift in anthropological writings after the second World war in France
>which used Saussure's reformulations of linguistic theory. Saussure
>understood the construction of linguistic meaning not as the singular
>effect of an intending speaker but as the function of signs and symbols
>within a meaning system - or structure. Levi Strauss developed this into a
>"structuralist" theory of subjects and social practices which broke with
>the phenomenological/existential emphasis on the original subject (Sartre,
>merleau ponty....) and instead considered structures of social meaning and
>Post structuralists (Derrida, Kristeva, deleuze, though strictly speaking
>not Foucault) thought Levi strauss had merely dispensed with a static and
>idealistic notion of the subject in order to replace it with a static and
>idealist notion of structure. Do structures have a history? How does power
>shape structures? What do structures conceal or repress?
>Foucault resembles this tradition, but develops from a different
>intellectual lineage: first a history and philosophy of science and then
>philosophical historical application of Nietzsche and Bataille. This is
>somewhat different from Levi Strauss's anthropology, but from our
>perspective as North American readers (if that's what we are) in the mid
>90's, the difference is merely a scholastic question.
>As for post modernism: it depends entirely on what you mean by post
>modern, and there is no clear concensus. taking the term in the strictly
>literal sense as the theory of a period after modernity, Foucault could not
>be a post modernist since his analyses rarely extend even as far as the
>20th century, let alone to an analysis "after" modernity, in the manner of,
>say Frederic Jameson. If by post modern you mean theorists who express a
>general scepticism towards the project of modern progress itself, sure, he
>could be a post modernist, but then so could a lot of people. In fact, the
>19th century is full of post modernists which is odd considering how much
>modern thinking was yet to be done.
>Personally I don't think the term post modern is very useful except in the
>strictly periodizing sense in which jameson and Lyotard use it (coupled
>with terms like post industrial, late capitalist and so on).
>Okay, enough!
Az Khak Bar'amadim-o- Bar Khak Shodym

Partial thread listing: