Let's get some things straight:
I did not say that who Foucault was is totaly disconnected
>from what he wrote. I agree that part of his life is represented
in his work, and that his may also help us understand his life.
But F.'s statement that one "writes to become something other than
what one is" simply implies that one wants to be something other
than what one is and that writing accomplishes this transformation.
So to understand the work we should not look at what one
was before the writing, but on the contrary look at the work to understand
what one became after the writing. Thus, reading Discipline and Punish
would help us understand F.'s active role in GIP, and not vice versa.
It follows that (given F.'s statement) the work is more basic than the life,
that the former determines the latter. So it is true that one's life is
necessarily
wrapped up in one's writings only in the sense that it was the work that
determined the life and not the other way around. Consequently,
when we want to see how the ideas involved in the work could be applied
to concrete political situations we should focus on the work and what it offers
(as criticism as well as new strategies to follow) rather than the details
of the
author's life. (When we read Marx to gain insight into capitalism, we don't
worry
about his life, do we?).
I repeat, if we knew nothing about F.'s life (suppose he used a pseudnyme) what
difference would that make to any movement that wanted to use his ideas?
In other words, what has F.'s life got to do with the application of his
ideas to
new concrete political situations? If we say that his "work is the historico-
philosophical application of ideas and interests that occured within the
framework of F.'s life alone (note the strong implications of the word
'alone'), as Nicolas did, are we not narrowing the significance of that
work down to that life 'alone'? When Zapatistas in Mexico claim to be
inspired by Foucault (which they do) should we say "F.'s work was an
application of what happened in his life 'alone', and bears no significance on
the your movement." Hopefully not!
As to the question whether F. wrote from some "neutral" place,
my answer is "no". I think there is a deep political concern that informs
F.'s entire work and that he could not be neutral.
Finally, (if you want to get so personal) I've *read* F.'s work neither denying
nor assuming the possibility of that neutrality. I've *read* it to see what
what it reveals about certain historical processes and how the insights
it provides may be used to change certain things that some of us are not
happy with.
>
>I'm not sure I like the implications of what Ferda writes below. Some of
>us don't happen to think the guy was "fucked up." People who would
>dismiss his work out of hand because he wasn't a 'straight family man'
>are wrong to do so, of course. But that doesn't mean that who he was was
>something totally disconnected from what he wrote. If, as he claimed,
>one "writes to become something other than what one is," it would seem
>to follow that one's life is necessarily wrapped up in one's writings.
>
>The conclusion to be had is neither for people who thought his life was
>"fucked up" to dismiss his work out of hand nor for those who thought
>his life was just fine to unquestioningly endorse his writings simply
>because they endorsed his life. But let's get clear about the fact that
>much of his life - his experience, who he was and who he was in the
>process of becoming - is represented in his writings. How could it be
>otherwise? Do you suppose he wrote from some "neutral" place? Have you
>*read* his work denying the very possibility of that neutrality?
>
>
>Blaine Rehkopf
>Philosophy
>York University
>Canada
>
>
>
>In your message of 1:19 Nov 9 1996, you write:
>
>> >
>> > It seems that in some respects Foucault's work is the
>> >historico-philosophical application of ideas and interests that occurred
>> >within the framework of Foucault's life alone. Foucault was writing an
>> >applied version of himself.
>> >
>> > Nicholas
>> >
>>
>> This is probably the most dangerous interpretation of Foucault's work.
>> Such interpretations lead to such disasters as James Miller's "The
>> Passion of Michel Foucault" and to excuses to dismiss the ethical/political
>> substance and implications of his work (just another version of "the
>> argumentum ad hominem": the guy was fucked up, so was the work!)
>> What if we knew nothing about Foucault's private life? Would we have less
>> to say about his work than we do about Blanchot's?
>>
>
>
>--
>
>
I did not say that who Foucault was is totaly disconnected
>from what he wrote. I agree that part of his life is represented
in his work, and that his may also help us understand his life.
But F.'s statement that one "writes to become something other than
what one is" simply implies that one wants to be something other
than what one is and that writing accomplishes this transformation.
So to understand the work we should not look at what one
was before the writing, but on the contrary look at the work to understand
what one became after the writing. Thus, reading Discipline and Punish
would help us understand F.'s active role in GIP, and not vice versa.
It follows that (given F.'s statement) the work is more basic than the life,
that the former determines the latter. So it is true that one's life is
necessarily
wrapped up in one's writings only in the sense that it was the work that
determined the life and not the other way around. Consequently,
when we want to see how the ideas involved in the work could be applied
to concrete political situations we should focus on the work and what it offers
(as criticism as well as new strategies to follow) rather than the details
of the
author's life. (When we read Marx to gain insight into capitalism, we don't
worry
about his life, do we?).
I repeat, if we knew nothing about F.'s life (suppose he used a pseudnyme) what
difference would that make to any movement that wanted to use his ideas?
In other words, what has F.'s life got to do with the application of his
ideas to
new concrete political situations? If we say that his "work is the historico-
philosophical application of ideas and interests that occured within the
framework of F.'s life alone (note the strong implications of the word
'alone'), as Nicolas did, are we not narrowing the significance of that
work down to that life 'alone'? When Zapatistas in Mexico claim to be
inspired by Foucault (which they do) should we say "F.'s work was an
application of what happened in his life 'alone', and bears no significance on
the your movement." Hopefully not!
As to the question whether F. wrote from some "neutral" place,
my answer is "no". I think there is a deep political concern that informs
F.'s entire work and that he could not be neutral.
Finally, (if you want to get so personal) I've *read* F.'s work neither denying
nor assuming the possibility of that neutrality. I've *read* it to see what
what it reveals about certain historical processes and how the insights
it provides may be used to change certain things that some of us are not
happy with.
>
>I'm not sure I like the implications of what Ferda writes below. Some of
>us don't happen to think the guy was "fucked up." People who would
>dismiss his work out of hand because he wasn't a 'straight family man'
>are wrong to do so, of course. But that doesn't mean that who he was was
>something totally disconnected from what he wrote. If, as he claimed,
>one "writes to become something other than what one is," it would seem
>to follow that one's life is necessarily wrapped up in one's writings.
>
>The conclusion to be had is neither for people who thought his life was
>"fucked up" to dismiss his work out of hand nor for those who thought
>his life was just fine to unquestioningly endorse his writings simply
>because they endorsed his life. But let's get clear about the fact that
>much of his life - his experience, who he was and who he was in the
>process of becoming - is represented in his writings. How could it be
>otherwise? Do you suppose he wrote from some "neutral" place? Have you
>*read* his work denying the very possibility of that neutrality?
>
>
>Blaine Rehkopf
>Philosophy
>York University
>Canada
>
>
>
>In your message of 1:19 Nov 9 1996, you write:
>
>> >
>> > It seems that in some respects Foucault's work is the
>> >historico-philosophical application of ideas and interests that occurred
>> >within the framework of Foucault's life alone. Foucault was writing an
>> >applied version of himself.
>> >
>> > Nicholas
>> >
>>
>> This is probably the most dangerous interpretation of Foucault's work.
>> Such interpretations lead to such disasters as James Miller's "The
>> Passion of Michel Foucault" and to excuses to dismiss the ethical/political
>> substance and implications of his work (just another version of "the
>> argumentum ad hominem": the guy was fucked up, so was the work!)
>> What if we knew nothing about Foucault's private life? Would we have less
>> to say about his work than we do about Blanchot's?
>>
>
>
>--
>
>