Colin Wight wrote:
> 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?.....
So don't believe him. As I acknowledged at some earlier point (lost in
the haze) Foucault did attempt (or at least claim to attempt) just such
a suspension of judgment. Whether it always just a tactical device, or a
failed but genuine attempt, F. did move away from such claims later on.
> 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?
Again, I must return you to the distinction which I pointed out, where
F.'s work differs from Mein Kampf is that it does not set out a
programme, it is critical without being normative. It is the matter of
what F. would like to see happen which I think is generally
unrecoverable.
> 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.
You are confusing the intended function of statements with actual
function.
>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.
>
Foucault is not proposing inaction and nor does he think that there are
no implications of his work. The point is (and has been several times)
that the problems which F. perceives and tries to create will not be
resolved at the level of intellectual programmes, prescriptions or
theories but through the actual working through of power relations at
the capillary level. It is not the case that any 'solution' is 'simply
one more reinscription of the order of things', merely that any proposed
solution has the potential to become invested with oppressive power.
Therefore, those involved in struggles against domination must be
prepared to abandon any tactic or strategy at the point at which its
liberating potential becomes destroyed. F. is trying to give resistance
a space in which to develop, but also to provide an escape route by not
tying it to this or that set of philosophical prescriptions.
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
> 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?.....
So don't believe him. As I acknowledged at some earlier point (lost in
the haze) Foucault did attempt (or at least claim to attempt) just such
a suspension of judgment. Whether it always just a tactical device, or a
failed but genuine attempt, F. did move away from such claims later on.
> 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?
Again, I must return you to the distinction which I pointed out, where
F.'s work differs from Mein Kampf is that it does not set out a
programme, it is critical without being normative. It is the matter of
what F. would like to see happen which I think is generally
unrecoverable.
> 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.
You are confusing the intended function of statements with actual
function.
>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.
>
Foucault is not proposing inaction and nor does he think that there are
no implications of his work. The point is (and has been several times)
that the problems which F. perceives and tries to create will not be
resolved at the level of intellectual programmes, prescriptions or
theories but through the actual working through of power relations at
the capillary level. It is not the case that any 'solution' is 'simply
one more reinscription of the order of things', merely that any proposed
solution has the potential to become invested with oppressive power.
Therefore, those involved in struggles against domination must be
prepared to abandon any tactic or strategy at the point at which its
liberating potential becomes destroyed. F. is trying to give resistance
a space in which to develop, but also to provide an escape route by not
tying it to this or that set of philosophical prescriptions.
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