> Hello. I've been reading this list for awhile, but this is my first post.
> I'm teaching two courses this semester having to do with Foucault and
> Habermas. In my dept., Habermas is favored over Foucault (god only knows
> why). We have weekly staff meetings to discuss the readings and
> inevitably, at this point in the term, the Habermasians point to
> Foucault's "crypto-normativity". The term comes up in a Habermasian piece
> in Mike Kelly's "Critique and Power" (MIT Press). I was wondering if
> anyone out there has a firm grip on this charge and how to counter it?
>
> Thanks,
> Henry Rubin
> Cambridge, MA
>
The charge, from Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (Habermas), is
based on a confusion. Foucault could only be crypto-normative if he
were not explicitly normative. But he is explicitly normative.
On the other hand, I can evaluate things all day long without
prescribing anything. And that is what Foucault does (for reasons
that I already tried to summarize on this list a few weeks ago).
Having said that, there are more serious critiques of Foucault coming
>from the Habermasian direction, like Thomas McCarthy's critique in the
book that Kelly edited (Critique and Power?), although I disagree also
with the latter.
Steve
> I'm teaching two courses this semester having to do with Foucault and
> Habermas. In my dept., Habermas is favored over Foucault (god only knows
> why). We have weekly staff meetings to discuss the readings and
> inevitably, at this point in the term, the Habermasians point to
> Foucault's "crypto-normativity". The term comes up in a Habermasian piece
> in Mike Kelly's "Critique and Power" (MIT Press). I was wondering if
> anyone out there has a firm grip on this charge and how to counter it?
>
> Thanks,
> Henry Rubin
> Cambridge, MA
>
The charge, from Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (Habermas), is
based on a confusion. Foucault could only be crypto-normative if he
were not explicitly normative. But he is explicitly normative.
On the other hand, I can evaluate things all day long without
prescribing anything. And that is what Foucault does (for reasons
that I already tried to summarize on this list a few weeks ago).
Having said that, there are more serious critiques of Foucault coming
>from the Habermasian direction, like Thomas McCarthy's critique in the
book that Kelly edited (Critique and Power?), although I disagree also
with the latter.
Steve