Again another interesting reply but I'm still unconvinced.
For example:
> All Foucault tries to do is
>to alter our perceptions of A in the hope that this will disrupt it and
>create alternative unstated and unthought possibilities.
But why does he want to do this? What normative commitments compel him to
change our perceptions? What does he dislike about our present perceptions?
Maybe, like many of us he doesn't like the present order of things, but
doesn't know what to put in its place. OK, i can accept this, but the moment
he begins his trangression he is in the game and tied to his values.
>In addition, Foucault's conception of his critical practice as an
>ongoing struggle with power with a constant redefinition of tactics,
>positions, and strategies, or an 'agonism', ought to be brought in
>here. In it I think Foucault does manage to resist the charge of
>maintaining the fact-value distinction.
I still don't see how you think this gets him over the fact/value thingy.
Insofar, as he claims not be be for or against any particualr position but
merely telling us the ways things are then he is still working under the
delusion that his values do not intrude into his work. I mean, 'he's not for
or against any particular form of medicine', give me a break.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
For example:
> All Foucault tries to do is
>to alter our perceptions of A in the hope that this will disrupt it and
>create alternative unstated and unthought possibilities.
But why does he want to do this? What normative commitments compel him to
change our perceptions? What does he dislike about our present perceptions?
Maybe, like many of us he doesn't like the present order of things, but
doesn't know what to put in its place. OK, i can accept this, but the moment
he begins his trangression he is in the game and tied to his values.
>In addition, Foucault's conception of his critical practice as an
>ongoing struggle with power with a constant redefinition of tactics,
>positions, and strategies, or an 'agonism', ought to be brought in
>here. In it I think Foucault does manage to resist the charge of
>maintaining the fact-value distinction.
I still don't see how you think this gets him over the fact/value thingy.
Insofar, as he claims not be be for or against any particualr position but
merely telling us the ways things are then he is still working under the
delusion that his values do not intrude into his work. I mean, 'he's not for
or against any particular form of medicine', give me a break.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------