On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, John Ransom wrote:
> It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace
> Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida. The minority view was always
> that power could be undermined by truth ...Once you read Foucault as
> saying that truth is simply an effect of power, you've had it. ...But
> American departments of literature, history and sociology contain large
> numbers of self-described leftists who have confused radical doubts about
> objectivity with political radicalism, and are in a mess. [end Sokal
> quoting Ryan]
> Assuming (but not requiring!) that most of us would regard Ryan's
> rendition of Foucault, along with Sokal's use of it, as flawed, along
> what lines would we want to say that Sokal and Ryan are wrong about
> Foucault?
1) "minority view" sounds vague, general, dismissive of diversity
and contest among "minorities" - it sounds like a label made up for
the benefit of whoever might fear such an entity's ever getting its act
together. i doubt sokal or ryan would ever presume to understand, much
less speak for, some essential "black view" or "yellow view" or "feminist
view" or "gay view" etc . . . let alone this "minority view".
2) it would actually be more "suicidal" to accept on faith that "power
could be undermined by truth" when those in power have the most
power to define, determine, interpret, and create truth to their own ends.
suicidal for the disempowered, i mean. authoritarian notions of "truth"
have been the most powerful weapons of those in power. foucault didn't
hallucinate this. two examples of this understanding that predate
foucault: taoist critiques of confucianism in china; native resistance to
christian missionaries around the world.
3) vague phrases like "you've had it" and "in a mess" - i can't imagine
them working for anyone but rush limbaugh. what kind of an audience did
ryan have in mind, anyway?
Sigmund Shen
> It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace
> Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida. The minority view was always
> that power could be undermined by truth ...Once you read Foucault as
> saying that truth is simply an effect of power, you've had it. ...But
> American departments of literature, history and sociology contain large
> numbers of self-described leftists who have confused radical doubts about
> objectivity with political radicalism, and are in a mess. [end Sokal
> quoting Ryan]
> Assuming (but not requiring!) that most of us would regard Ryan's
> rendition of Foucault, along with Sokal's use of it, as flawed, along
> what lines would we want to say that Sokal and Ryan are wrong about
> Foucault?
1) "minority view" sounds vague, general, dismissive of diversity
and contest among "minorities" - it sounds like a label made up for
the benefit of whoever might fear such an entity's ever getting its act
together. i doubt sokal or ryan would ever presume to understand, much
less speak for, some essential "black view" or "yellow view" or "feminist
view" or "gay view" etc . . . let alone this "minority view".
2) it would actually be more "suicidal" to accept on faith that "power
could be undermined by truth" when those in power have the most
power to define, determine, interpret, and create truth to their own ends.
suicidal for the disempowered, i mean. authoritarian notions of "truth"
have been the most powerful weapons of those in power. foucault didn't
hallucinate this. two examples of this understanding that predate
foucault: taoist critiques of confucianism in china; native resistance to
christian missionaries around the world.
3) vague phrases like "you've had it" and "in a mess" - i can't imagine
them working for anyone but rush limbaugh. what kind of an audience did
ryan have in mind, anyway?
Sigmund Shen