Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Ah yes, this appalling passage. How interesting that a writer of the 1960s
> who embraced some of the most extreme forms of heads-on-sticks French
> Maoism should adopt this chic neoconservatism in the 1970s. This passage is
> almost indistinguishable (in content, not style) from something of Irving
> Kristol's or Hilton Kramer's. Political principles and/or ethical standards
> lead straight to the gulag. The dream of social transformation must be
> dropped - apparently there's some standard, arrived at by some
> unacknowledged process, that tells us gulags are bad - in favor
> of...transgressive practices?
As I read it, Foucault is not being neo-conservative here. What he is
doing is not to reject socialism per se, but to force it to adopt
critique of the gulag not as something 'other', but as, at least
potentially, immanent in itself. As far as the last point goes, I think
Foucault would say that we simply don't need to be 'told' to resist if
we're oppressed. Also Foucault did not reject the possibility of
radical social transformation, see his comments on the Iranian
revolution (in 'Politics, Philosophy, Culture'). Of course, nor did he
see it as either inherently good, bad and certainly not final.
Best wishes
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Ah yes, this appalling passage. How interesting that a writer of the 1960s
> who embraced some of the most extreme forms of heads-on-sticks French
> Maoism should adopt this chic neoconservatism in the 1970s. This passage is
> almost indistinguishable (in content, not style) from something of Irving
> Kristol's or Hilton Kramer's. Political principles and/or ethical standards
> lead straight to the gulag. The dream of social transformation must be
> dropped - apparently there's some standard, arrived at by some
> unacknowledged process, that tells us gulags are bad - in favor
> of...transgressive practices?
As I read it, Foucault is not being neo-conservative here. What he is
doing is not to reject socialism per se, but to force it to adopt
critique of the gulag not as something 'other', but as, at least
potentially, immanent in itself. As far as the last point goes, I think
Foucault would say that we simply don't need to be 'told' to resist if
we're oppressed. Also Foucault did not reject the possibility of
radical social transformation, see his comments on the Iranian
revolution (in 'Politics, Philosophy, Culture'). Of course, nor did he
see it as either inherently good, bad and certainly not final.
Best wishes
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx