Dear Daniel,
No doubt others will come up with a better response, but as far
as I know Foucault's only reply was along the lines of 'I would
have more problems remembering Baudrillard'. You do put your finger
on an important point: it seems that foucault and his followers/
interpreters were and have been remarkably slow to engage with
Baudrillard's frontal critique. We need not agree with all that
Baudrillard says to recognise it as a serious and provoking challenge.
Many however still regard Baudrillard as not worthy of comment (I say
many, and not all, for I know several Foucault experts who do take
_Forget Foucault_ seriously). Part of the reluctance to take
Baudrillard seriously seems to be the result of Foucault's own
reportably 'furious' reaction to the publication of the pamphlet
itself. If we take Baudrillard's word for it, Foucault's fury
would seem all the more bizarre after Foucault himself had expressed
an interest in responding, only then to say 'I don't want to reply,
do what you like with it'. See David Macey's _The Lives of Michel
Foucault_ (pp.358-60) for a useful description of the background.
I have been interested for some time in the relationship between
Foucault and Baudrillard, and their somewhat enigmatic intermediatory,
Paul Virilio. If anyone can enlighten the list on these issues I'd
also be interested.
take care,
ian.r.d.
"I decline to accept the end of Man." - William Faulkner
_______________________________________________________________________
Ian Robert Douglas,
Department of Politics, "In order to destroy God, and after having
University of Bristol, destroyed him, the European mind destroyed
Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK. everything that could oppose man; having
accomplished its attempt, it finds only
I.R.Douglas@xxxxxxxxxx death." (Andre Malraux, , La Tendation de
Tel: (0117) 928 7898 l'Occident, 1972: 158)
Fax: (0117) 973 2133
_______________________________________________________________________
No doubt others will come up with a better response, but as far
as I know Foucault's only reply was along the lines of 'I would
have more problems remembering Baudrillard'. You do put your finger
on an important point: it seems that foucault and his followers/
interpreters were and have been remarkably slow to engage with
Baudrillard's frontal critique. We need not agree with all that
Baudrillard says to recognise it as a serious and provoking challenge.
Many however still regard Baudrillard as not worthy of comment (I say
many, and not all, for I know several Foucault experts who do take
_Forget Foucault_ seriously). Part of the reluctance to take
Baudrillard seriously seems to be the result of Foucault's own
reportably 'furious' reaction to the publication of the pamphlet
itself. If we take Baudrillard's word for it, Foucault's fury
would seem all the more bizarre after Foucault himself had expressed
an interest in responding, only then to say 'I don't want to reply,
do what you like with it'. See David Macey's _The Lives of Michel
Foucault_ (pp.358-60) for a useful description of the background.
I have been interested for some time in the relationship between
Foucault and Baudrillard, and their somewhat enigmatic intermediatory,
Paul Virilio. If anyone can enlighten the list on these issues I'd
also be interested.
take care,
ian.r.d.
"I decline to accept the end of Man." - William Faulkner
_______________________________________________________________________
Ian Robert Douglas,
Department of Politics, "In order to destroy God, and after having
University of Bristol, destroyed him, the European mind destroyed
Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK. everything that could oppose man; having
accomplished its attempt, it finds only
I.R.Douglas@xxxxxxxxxx death." (Andre Malraux, , La Tendation de
Tel: (0117) 928 7898 l'Occident, 1972: 158)
Fax: (0117) 973 2133
_______________________________________________________________________