Blaine wrote,
>> Ferda,
>>=20
>> Let me apologize for the tone of my last message. I think it came off as
>> being a bit more harsh - now that I've read it over again - than I
>> really intended.=20
>>=20
>> Though I suppose I was a bit surprised by your suggestion that=20
>> Foucault's life was "fucked up." I do appreciate your comments and=20
>> clarifications concerning the role of the author.=20
>>=20
>> I'd be interested also in hearing what it might have been about F=20
>> that you (or, perhaps you are just suggesting that it is some others)=20
>> think was fucked up about his life. That he was gay? Into S/M?=20
>> Had HIV/AIDS? Shaved his head? Wore those damn turtleneck sweaters?=20
>> Wrote and studied with brilliance? Was politically active for many=20
>> less fortunate (and in some cases, more fortunate) than himself?=20
>>=20
>> I suppose I was surprised with the broad brush you used to paint such=20
>> a complex picture. Maybe you could clarify for me.=20
>>=20
>> And again, I'm sorry for the tone of my first response. :)
>>=20
>> Blaine Rehkopf
>> Philosophy
>> York University
>> Canada
>>=20
Blaine,
Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify this misinterpreation
of my message that I had not foreseen. I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT
NOR MEANT TO SUGGEST that Foucault's life was fucked up.
On the contrtary, I have always found it somewhat fascinating,=20
My reaction to an attempt to establish a one-to-one correspondance
between his life and his work was probably fueled by my reaction
to those who emphasize certain facts of his life which may be=20
interpreted as 'immoral', 'pervert', 'fucked up' by conservative
minds and then suggest a causal relationship betwen these and
the ideas to be found in the work. My original example was
James Miller's "The Passion of Michel Foucault" where one finds
painstakingly detailed descriptions of some episodes of F.'s life
insinuating incestuous desires, death insticts, madness, etc. and=20
suggestions that these episodes are directly related to the geneses
oh his books. Now to those who would think that incest, death=20
desire, madness, etc. are abnormal behavior that justify "dividing
practices" it would follow that the work ought to be dismissed
as the product of a 'sick' mind. That's why I said that interpreting
the work in such close relationship to the life would be
dangerous. =20
Now, I believe that sickness, mental ilness, delinquency, sexuality
(and therefore sexual perversity), etc. are dispositifs of power
used for the manipulation and subjection of the individual. But
I know that many who might read F. do not think so. Hence,
for prctical purposes, I think it would be tactically correct to
focus on the work and its content rather than the life.
Yet, I still believe in a theoretical context that F.'s work is not
an application of his life. For many reasons: for example,
to make such a strong claim we would have to have a nearly=20
complete description of the life. But many of us simply
rely on the biographies some of which may be one-sided,
manipulated, with a "mauvaise foi", etc. (why should we
otherwise have three biographies written witin the ten=20
years following F.'s life -not to mention Jeanette Colombel's
semi-biographical "Michel Foucault: La Clart=E9 de la Mort" ?)
Further, I think F. was creative enough to work out a=20
synthesis of the enormous stuff he read in his formal=20
education as well as later (just think of the curriculum of
"Ecole Normale") to come out with original ideas not=20
directly related to the facts of his life. I can amplify=20
this list of reasons, but I don't want to keep you busy.
As a last point, I also think that F.'s life draws an=20
enourmously complex picture with many admirable details.
The broad brush that you mention is not mine. I was=20
just trying to take the canvas back.
Ferda=20
>> Ferda,
>>=20
>> Let me apologize for the tone of my last message. I think it came off as
>> being a bit more harsh - now that I've read it over again - than I
>> really intended.=20
>>=20
>> Though I suppose I was a bit surprised by your suggestion that=20
>> Foucault's life was "fucked up." I do appreciate your comments and=20
>> clarifications concerning the role of the author.=20
>>=20
>> I'd be interested also in hearing what it might have been about F=20
>> that you (or, perhaps you are just suggesting that it is some others)=20
>> think was fucked up about his life. That he was gay? Into S/M?=20
>> Had HIV/AIDS? Shaved his head? Wore those damn turtleneck sweaters?=20
>> Wrote and studied with brilliance? Was politically active for many=20
>> less fortunate (and in some cases, more fortunate) than himself?=20
>>=20
>> I suppose I was surprised with the broad brush you used to paint such=20
>> a complex picture. Maybe you could clarify for me.=20
>>=20
>> And again, I'm sorry for the tone of my first response. :)
>>=20
>> Blaine Rehkopf
>> Philosophy
>> York University
>> Canada
>>=20
Blaine,
Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify this misinterpreation
of my message that I had not foreseen. I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT
NOR MEANT TO SUGGEST that Foucault's life was fucked up.
On the contrtary, I have always found it somewhat fascinating,=20
My reaction to an attempt to establish a one-to-one correspondance
between his life and his work was probably fueled by my reaction
to those who emphasize certain facts of his life which may be=20
interpreted as 'immoral', 'pervert', 'fucked up' by conservative
minds and then suggest a causal relationship betwen these and
the ideas to be found in the work. My original example was
James Miller's "The Passion of Michel Foucault" where one finds
painstakingly detailed descriptions of some episodes of F.'s life
insinuating incestuous desires, death insticts, madness, etc. and=20
suggestions that these episodes are directly related to the geneses
oh his books. Now to those who would think that incest, death=20
desire, madness, etc. are abnormal behavior that justify "dividing
practices" it would follow that the work ought to be dismissed
as the product of a 'sick' mind. That's why I said that interpreting
the work in such close relationship to the life would be
dangerous. =20
Now, I believe that sickness, mental ilness, delinquency, sexuality
(and therefore sexual perversity), etc. are dispositifs of power
used for the manipulation and subjection of the individual. But
I know that many who might read F. do not think so. Hence,
for prctical purposes, I think it would be tactically correct to
focus on the work and its content rather than the life.
Yet, I still believe in a theoretical context that F.'s work is not
an application of his life. For many reasons: for example,
to make such a strong claim we would have to have a nearly=20
complete description of the life. But many of us simply
rely on the biographies some of which may be one-sided,
manipulated, with a "mauvaise foi", etc. (why should we
otherwise have three biographies written witin the ten=20
years following F.'s life -not to mention Jeanette Colombel's
semi-biographical "Michel Foucault: La Clart=E9 de la Mort" ?)
Further, I think F. was creative enough to work out a=20
synthesis of the enormous stuff he read in his formal=20
education as well as later (just think of the curriculum of
"Ecole Normale") to come out with original ideas not=20
directly related to the facts of his life. I can amplify=20
this list of reasons, but I don't want to keep you busy.
As a last point, I also think that F.'s life draws an=20
enourmously complex picture with many admirable details.
The broad brush that you mention is not mine. I was=20
just trying to take the canvas back.
Ferda=20