malgosia askanas wrote:
>Doug, I think that what you keep trying to ask is this. Is there anything
>in Foucault -- and if so, what? -- that draws limits to the interpretation
>of, say, Foucault's notion of "trangression"? Is it just because Foucault
>is mostly read by a bunch of academics, and thus not treated with complete
>seriousness, that people don't, under the influence of his writings, engage
>in murder and eye-ripping in the name of "experimenting with one's limits"?
>Or is there anything in Foucault writings that circumscribes this
>"experimentation"? Could someone "experiment" with mass murder and still be,
>so to speak, a good Foucauldian?
>
>Is this what you're trying to ask? I don't think I have anything to offer
>by way of answer, but this is the first time that I feel like maybe I
>understand
>the question.
Well yes, that's a good part of it - and I'm asking that not just about
Foucault himself, as man and author, but about people who admire them. More
broadly, I'm also asking how seriously to take this whole anti-humanist
line. Without humanism, are all things possible?
I was flamed for bringing up Foucault's connections to the heads-on-sticks
tendencies of French 60s Maoism. But there's no doubt that Foucault was
fascinated by extremes of torture and violence, whether we're talking about
Damiens and Riviere or erotic play with floggers and fists. When it comes
to erotic play, I say screw official morality, let a thousand nipple clamps
bloom, but when it comes to politics and social life, I get a little
nervous about eroticized violence. For all the Foucaultian (or is it
Foucauldian?) talk about the local and the specific, I see an awful lot of
abstract, even universalizing, declarations about anti-moralism.
Doug
Doug
>Doug, I think that what you keep trying to ask is this. Is there anything
>in Foucault -- and if so, what? -- that draws limits to the interpretation
>of, say, Foucault's notion of "trangression"? Is it just because Foucault
>is mostly read by a bunch of academics, and thus not treated with complete
>seriousness, that people don't, under the influence of his writings, engage
>in murder and eye-ripping in the name of "experimenting with one's limits"?
>Or is there anything in Foucault writings that circumscribes this
>"experimentation"? Could someone "experiment" with mass murder and still be,
>so to speak, a good Foucauldian?
>
>Is this what you're trying to ask? I don't think I have anything to offer
>by way of answer, but this is the first time that I feel like maybe I
>understand
>the question.
Well yes, that's a good part of it - and I'm asking that not just about
Foucault himself, as man and author, but about people who admire them. More
broadly, I'm also asking how seriously to take this whole anti-humanist
line. Without humanism, are all things possible?
I was flamed for bringing up Foucault's connections to the heads-on-sticks
tendencies of French 60s Maoism. But there's no doubt that Foucault was
fascinated by extremes of torture and violence, whether we're talking about
Damiens and Riviere or erotic play with floggers and fists. When it comes
to erotic play, I say screw official morality, let a thousand nipple clamps
bloom, but when it comes to politics and social life, I get a little
nervous about eroticized violence. For all the Foucaultian (or is it
Foucauldian?) talk about the local and the specific, I see an awful lot of
abstract, even universalizing, declarations about anti-moralism.
Doug
Doug