Colin wrote:
> Explain why your borders apply and what
> justifies them and we can debate them. Without this the relativism and
> nihilism that you claim is a straw position is, on the contrary, a reality.
> For if I have my answer and you have yours, but mine involves the
> destruction of large ammounts of people how are you going to persuade me or
> anyone else that my practice is wrong?
I have a counter-proposal. Tell me what it is in Foucault, exactly,
that prompts you to pose this question as specifically arising with respect
to Foucault. I assume that you don't normally stop people in the street
and demand that they justify their borders and debate them with you.
And since you're doing it here, I assume there is an implicit Foucauldian
reference behind it.
> Also, really, if anyone is to blame for the overblown reading of Foucault
> as an anti-humanist, relativist, nihilist then it is the Foucault industry
> itself. This reading, I agree, is not really consistently elaborated in
> Foucault's own work (it is possible to read him this way on occassions) but
> surfaces as an Anglo-Saxon construct. I mean I still come across Profs
> teaching undergraduates that postmoderns (and Foucault is generally dragged
> out here as an example) think that there is no such thing as truth. Nothing
> could be further from the truth in F's case. Still, the undergrads, who
> after all are only here to regurgitate what they are told, take this at face
> value. So Foucault the academic construct now appears as an ant-humanist,
> relativist, nihilist. And hey, why should you worry, you are not going to
> suggest that Foucault meant otherwise are you? (Wouldn't this imply an
> author?)
Colin, to whom do you propose I should suggest that Foucault meant otherwise?
To the Guy in Charge of the Foucault Industry? Give me the address and
I'll write a letter of protest.
Meanwhile, what do you think about the "What is an Author" piece? Which
sections do you like? Dislike? Agree with? Disagree with? Find difficult?
Can't stomach? Get off on?
-m
> Explain why your borders apply and what
> justifies them and we can debate them. Without this the relativism and
> nihilism that you claim is a straw position is, on the contrary, a reality.
> For if I have my answer and you have yours, but mine involves the
> destruction of large ammounts of people how are you going to persuade me or
> anyone else that my practice is wrong?
I have a counter-proposal. Tell me what it is in Foucault, exactly,
that prompts you to pose this question as specifically arising with respect
to Foucault. I assume that you don't normally stop people in the street
and demand that they justify their borders and debate them with you.
And since you're doing it here, I assume there is an implicit Foucauldian
reference behind it.
> Also, really, if anyone is to blame for the overblown reading of Foucault
> as an anti-humanist, relativist, nihilist then it is the Foucault industry
> itself. This reading, I agree, is not really consistently elaborated in
> Foucault's own work (it is possible to read him this way on occassions) but
> surfaces as an Anglo-Saxon construct. I mean I still come across Profs
> teaching undergraduates that postmoderns (and Foucault is generally dragged
> out here as an example) think that there is no such thing as truth. Nothing
> could be further from the truth in F's case. Still, the undergrads, who
> after all are only here to regurgitate what they are told, take this at face
> value. So Foucault the academic construct now appears as an ant-humanist,
> relativist, nihilist. And hey, why should you worry, you are not going to
> suggest that Foucault meant otherwise are you? (Wouldn't this imply an
> author?)
Colin, to whom do you propose I should suggest that Foucault meant otherwise?
To the Guy in Charge of the Foucault Industry? Give me the address and
I'll write a letter of protest.
Meanwhile, what do you think about the "What is an Author" piece? Which
sections do you like? Dislike? Agree with? Disagree with? Find difficult?
Can't stomach? Get off on?
-m