In your message of 1:27 Feb 11 1997, you write:
> Colleagues,
>
> I have only been able to recently rejoin this list and I was wondering if
> any of you had noticed the attack on Foucault by Alan Sokal in his _Lingua
> Franca_, written to explain the parody of postmodernism that appeared in
> _Social Text_? He does this by quoting Alan Ryan as follows:
>
> 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?
This is an excellent question. The problem, as I see it, is in the
statement "The minority view was always that power could be undermined
by truth." Without immediate access to the original, it seems to me that
a quick move - an enthymeme? - is made from that observation to the
conclusion that it is political suicide for minority groups to embrace
Foucault's work. No argument is really provided.
One might say that this was the minority view, but one could then simply
say that such a view was wrong (i.e., politically ineffective). And, as
I understand it, that's Foucault's point, that assuming such a tactical
opposition between power on the one hand, and truth on the other, was
wrong - or ineffective. I also would stress that the truth=salvation
equation need not be entirely jetissoned on Foucault's view, only that
it can not be considered more than a subset of the broader network(s) of
power in the political.
The lesson I take from Foucault, in a nutshell, is that social justice
will not be the result of the perfect syllogism. Political struggle is
something much more than the search for a convincing arguement. Recall
Foucault's twist on the old saying when he wrote that politics is war by
other means.
If anyone is interested in some related references for this, I can make
some suggestions:
1. Mohr, Richard. "The Perils of Postmodernity for Gay Rights,"
_Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence_ VIII:1 (Jan 1995)
2. Halperin, David. _Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography_
(New York: Oxford UP, 1995)
3. Simons, Jon. _Foucault and the Political_ (London: Routledge,
1995)
By the way, John, thanks for posting the info about your new book. It
sounds quite interesting - I'll be on the lookout for it!
Peace,
Blaine Rehkopf
Philosophy
York University
CANADA
--
> Colleagues,
>
> I have only been able to recently rejoin this list and I was wondering if
> any of you had noticed the attack on Foucault by Alan Sokal in his _Lingua
> Franca_, written to explain the parody of postmodernism that appeared in
> _Social Text_? He does this by quoting Alan Ryan as follows:
>
> 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?
This is an excellent question. The problem, as I see it, is in the
statement "The minority view was always that power could be undermined
by truth." Without immediate access to the original, it seems to me that
a quick move - an enthymeme? - is made from that observation to the
conclusion that it is political suicide for minority groups to embrace
Foucault's work. No argument is really provided.
One might say that this was the minority view, but one could then simply
say that such a view was wrong (i.e., politically ineffective). And, as
I understand it, that's Foucault's point, that assuming such a tactical
opposition between power on the one hand, and truth on the other, was
wrong - or ineffective. I also would stress that the truth=salvation
equation need not be entirely jetissoned on Foucault's view, only that
it can not be considered more than a subset of the broader network(s) of
power in the political.
The lesson I take from Foucault, in a nutshell, is that social justice
will not be the result of the perfect syllogism. Political struggle is
something much more than the search for a convincing arguement. Recall
Foucault's twist on the old saying when he wrote that politics is war by
other means.
If anyone is interested in some related references for this, I can make
some suggestions:
1. Mohr, Richard. "The Perils of Postmodernity for Gay Rights,"
_Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence_ VIII:1 (Jan 1995)
2. Halperin, David. _Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography_
(New York: Oxford UP, 1995)
3. Simons, Jon. _Foucault and the Political_ (London: Routledge,
1995)
By the way, John, thanks for posting the info about your new book. It
sounds quite interesting - I'll be on the lookout for it!
Peace,
Blaine Rehkopf
Philosophy
York University
CANADA
--