Murray, rather nicely wrote:
>
>you do have a certain way of provoking responses don't you. Here goes.
Absolutely, I will take it as a compliment. It is of course intentional and
I would argue 'transgressive'. So I am always amused that my interventions
get the responses they do on this list. (Certain theortical positions
clearly come with large keys inserted in the backs of the propogators). More
seriously though, is the fact that if you look back through the discussion
we have traversed issues of ethics, truth, value freedom, authorship,
subjectivity. We have engendered retreats into 'hurt feelings', analytical
philosophy (thanks John), disciplinary techniques (those who say what has
this got to do with Foucualt, or these issues are not relevant), and so on.
If am am doing little other than getting people to think a little more
clearly about Foucault then all to the good. If I have to annoy some of them
in the process and shake their cosy ideological certainties that they 'know
Foucualt', that's part of the game. But more to the point why when I play
the 'intellectual terrorist' in relation to Foucault, do so many people want
to play the disciplinarianism card? Curious non?
Anyway, as I understand your reply you seem to be claiming that Foucault was
never detached. This may be true. I would certainly argue this, but then
again Foucault himself did claim exactly this. So?.....
Also, I am still at a loss to see how you can claim:
And yes of
>course Foucault is being driven by certain views about what is
>right/wrong, desirable/undesirable, but these are a) largely
>unrecoverable from his works,
Why? this question goes to the whole debate about authorship and
responsibility. Are we to assume then that Hitler's values are not inscribed
in Mein Kampf? to suggest as much would reintroduce the fact/value
distinction, and to reject this invites the question if AH's values intrude
into his text, why does this not occur with MF?
tob) irrelevant to the 'effect' which his
>analyses might have, which depends on them connecting in some critical
>way with the subjectivity of the reader and c)
See above. Why write if not for some purpose, to get across some message.
Again if you reject this you are basically reintroducing the fact/value
divide and saying the facts of the text are not corrupted by the values of
the author.
are certainly not
>constituted as an alternative set of norms.
Why not? Inaction is a form of action. If Foucault simply says 'hey guys and
gals the state we are in is pretty hunky dory bad, but I have no solutions
and any attempt to suggest solutions is simply one more reinscription of the
order of things.' Then the implication is do nothing. Political quietism.
Put Foucault up against the hard edge of the empirical 'niceties' of the
world, and he is completely otiose. I have yet to see an activist reading
Foucault to find out how to go on.
>I thought I would be presumptuous and change the subject line.
Go for it, this seems a good transgression to me.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>
>you do have a certain way of provoking responses don't you. Here goes.
Absolutely, I will take it as a compliment. It is of course intentional and
I would argue 'transgressive'. So I am always amused that my interventions
get the responses they do on this list. (Certain theortical positions
clearly come with large keys inserted in the backs of the propogators). More
seriously though, is the fact that if you look back through the discussion
we have traversed issues of ethics, truth, value freedom, authorship,
subjectivity. We have engendered retreats into 'hurt feelings', analytical
philosophy (thanks John), disciplinary techniques (those who say what has
this got to do with Foucualt, or these issues are not relevant), and so on.
If am am doing little other than getting people to think a little more
clearly about Foucault then all to the good. If I have to annoy some of them
in the process and shake their cosy ideological certainties that they 'know
Foucualt', that's part of the game. But more to the point why when I play
the 'intellectual terrorist' in relation to Foucault, do so many people want
to play the disciplinarianism card? Curious non?
Anyway, as I understand your reply you seem to be claiming that Foucault was
never detached. This may be true. I would certainly argue this, but then
again Foucault himself did claim exactly this. So?.....
Also, I am still at a loss to see how you can claim:
And yes of
>course Foucault is being driven by certain views about what is
>right/wrong, desirable/undesirable, but these are a) largely
>unrecoverable from his works,
Why? this question goes to the whole debate about authorship and
responsibility. Are we to assume then that Hitler's values are not inscribed
in Mein Kampf? to suggest as much would reintroduce the fact/value
distinction, and to reject this invites the question if AH's values intrude
into his text, why does this not occur with MF?
tob) irrelevant to the 'effect' which his
>analyses might have, which depends on them connecting in some critical
>way with the subjectivity of the reader and c)
See above. Why write if not for some purpose, to get across some message.
Again if you reject this you are basically reintroducing the fact/value
divide and saying the facts of the text are not corrupted by the values of
the author.
are certainly not
>constituted as an alternative set of norms.
Why not? Inaction is a form of action. If Foucault simply says 'hey guys and
gals the state we are in is pretty hunky dory bad, but I have no solutions
and any attempt to suggest solutions is simply one more reinscription of the
order of things.' Then the implication is do nothing. Political quietism.
Put Foucault up against the hard edge of the empirical 'niceties' of the
world, and he is completely otiose. I have yet to see an activist reading
Foucault to find out how to go on.
>I thought I would be presumptuous and change the subject line.
Go for it, this seems a good transgression to me.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------