Hi, what's particularly remarkable is how the "liberating discourse",
Foucaultian *centrifugal argument* (in Bahktin's language), can
immediately serve a *centripetal function*-- to organize and solidify
understanding, make it concrete and real and uncompromising and impose
itself as a *new totalizing principle* against other ideological
orders. Did Foucault ever recognize the innate *despotism* and
*militancy* of his *liberating* discourse? The nationalists obviously
did. But for what end? To just combat the *entrenched in the praxis*
enemy? Wiil this provoke any arguments? Too metaphoric? Thank you.
Alexei Deshevoi
____________________________________________
>> Telos, a magazine often perceived as an anti-liberal,
>> nationalist forum is saturated with Foucault's interviews
>> and references to his works. Where do the Western nationalists
>> find the Foucault's theory beneficial for advance of their
>> agenda? Is it because they both--Foucault and the nationalist
>> camp--unite in their anti-hegemonic sentiment? Is that all or
>> we can dig deeper to find common roots? Thank you.
>> Alexei Deshevoi
> I have thought about Alexei's point before, too, especially with
> relation to the "language game" on various discussion lists. It is one
> thing to condemn (and often referring to Foucault in doing so) the use
> of English as subscribing to some hegemony - but then again, isn't
> the use of ANY language a subscription to some homogenizing
> discourse??? And isn't the insistence to write in, say, German some
> kind of nationalism? This probably is not a problem of F.'s writing -
> rather a problem of people using F.'s writing to make it fit to their > own discursive construction of the world...
> any comments?
Foucaultian *centrifugal argument* (in Bahktin's language), can
immediately serve a *centripetal function*-- to organize and solidify
understanding, make it concrete and real and uncompromising and impose
itself as a *new totalizing principle* against other ideological
orders. Did Foucault ever recognize the innate *despotism* and
*militancy* of his *liberating* discourse? The nationalists obviously
did. But for what end? To just combat the *entrenched in the praxis*
enemy? Wiil this provoke any arguments? Too metaphoric? Thank you.
Alexei Deshevoi
____________________________________________
>> Telos, a magazine often perceived as an anti-liberal,
>> nationalist forum is saturated with Foucault's interviews
>> and references to his works. Where do the Western nationalists
>> find the Foucault's theory beneficial for advance of their
>> agenda? Is it because they both--Foucault and the nationalist
>> camp--unite in their anti-hegemonic sentiment? Is that all or
>> we can dig deeper to find common roots? Thank you.
>> Alexei Deshevoi
> I have thought about Alexei's point before, too, especially with
> relation to the "language game" on various discussion lists. It is one
> thing to condemn (and often referring to Foucault in doing so) the use
> of English as subscribing to some hegemony - but then again, isn't
> the use of ANY language a subscription to some homogenizing
> discourse??? And isn't the insistence to write in, say, German some
> kind of nationalism? This probably is not a problem of F.'s writing -
> rather a problem of people using F.'s writing to make it fit to their > own discursive construction of the world...
> any comments?