On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Matthew Scott Archer wrote:
[a bit snipped]
> Therefore, I do not see Foucault saying that there is no such thing as
> truth, rather the opposite. Truth exists and is 'real', but it is produced
> as such. I am not sure this adds anything to the conversation in progress,
> and perhaps others might feel inclined to critique it. However, I feel
> that the posting concerning "the truth that there is no truth" while
> entirely legitimate within the discourse of epistemology, talks past
> Foucault (who, as I said above, seems to be attempting to move outside this
> discourse) and does not engage with his insights.
>
Yeah Matt! I also think it's quite interesting how people try to fit
Foucault into the persona of the Great Western Philosopher ala Plato
who tells us what is Good, True, and Beautiful. Foucault is simply not
a philosopher: all this banter about "is-it-true-that-nothing-is-true"
is irrelevant to Foucault's work (a double-shot of Wittgenstein for
me too, by the way, barkeep).
All this leads me to an important question: how do people read Foucault's
work and come to this silly conclusion that "Foucault says nothing is
true" or "Foucault is a relativist"? Foucault studies how true
statements are deployed and used in our society, how they intersect
with power relations. The ontological status of these statements is
irrelevant to the analysis; what matters is that they function as
true statements in a given sociohistorical context. (In this, I see
Foucault as much like sociologists of religion who point out the social
functions embedded in a religious belief system such as monotheism.
Whether or not these sociologists believe in a deity is completely
irrelevant to their work).
Bottom line: if you want somebody to help you to debate philosophical
positions like realism or relativism, Foucault's not going to be
useful to you. As Matt says, you and Foucault will simply be talking
past one another.
Miles Jackson
cqmv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx