Miles Jackson wrote:
>But this is neither the point of Foucault's work nor what Foucault sees
>as the role of the intellectual in society. Foucault is not a moral
>philosopher; at best, he can help us to understand why specific social
>and discursive regimes are linked to certain moral positions. But this
>is descriptive, not prescriptive. This reminds me of the geographers
>who started picking on Foucault for not applying his concepts to their
>field of research. Foucault's reaction was more or less "Do it
>yourself". Foucault didn't write about everything, but there are a
>number of interesting ways his type of analysis can be extended (e.g.,
>discursive dissemination of class/gender/race stereotypes). It's silly
>to fault him because somewhere along the line he decided not to be an
>ethicist.
>
>Moreover, Foucault consistently refused to play the role of the public
>intellectual who provides grand moral or philosophical decrees that
>allow us to solve political or ethical issues.
Wimpish sophistry. "Descriptive not prescriptive" indeed. Most of
Foucault's writings are deeply political. How can a body of work that's so
deeply political - and one that's full of pronouncements on the
shortcomings of whole modes of thought - not offer any enlightenment about
real political issues?
Doug
>But this is neither the point of Foucault's work nor what Foucault sees
>as the role of the intellectual in society. Foucault is not a moral
>philosopher; at best, he can help us to understand why specific social
>and discursive regimes are linked to certain moral positions. But this
>is descriptive, not prescriptive. This reminds me of the geographers
>who started picking on Foucault for not applying his concepts to their
>field of research. Foucault's reaction was more or less "Do it
>yourself". Foucault didn't write about everything, but there are a
>number of interesting ways his type of analysis can be extended (e.g.,
>discursive dissemination of class/gender/race stereotypes). It's silly
>to fault him because somewhere along the line he decided not to be an
>ethicist.
>
>Moreover, Foucault consistently refused to play the role of the public
>intellectual who provides grand moral or philosophical decrees that
>allow us to solve political or ethical issues.
Wimpish sophistry. "Descriptive not prescriptive" indeed. Most of
Foucault's writings are deeply political. How can a body of work that's so
deeply political - and one that's full of pronouncements on the
shortcomings of whole modes of thought - not offer any enlightenment about
real political issues?
Doug