Re: no subject, no humanism

In your message of 17:23 Apr 10 1997, you write:

> it's as simple as that.

I take it that you mean Foucault can be boiled down to "No subject, no
humanism"?

Perhaps that would be correct. But are you suggesting Foucault thinks
that there is no subject? Or there can't be a subject? Or something
similar?

I'd suggest that a reading of Foucault's work denying something like the
existence of the subject would be controversial. I know lots of people
*say* that Foucault thought this, but *did* he actually say/think this?

To resolve that issue, I'd propose that we'd have to say exactly what is
meant by 'the subject' -- i.e. we'd need to elucidate the (many)
possible conceptions of 'the subject' that people use, then try to
understand which (one?) of them Foucault is actually problematizing.
[Or, one might want to argue that Foucault's work hinges on something
like a fallacy of ambiguity, wherein one can grant that he dissolves
'the subject' while one can also insist that he has not dissolved 'the
subject' of humanism (or whatever).]

So perhaps it's not "as simple as that"?

Peace,
Blaine
--



Partial thread listing: