On Thu, 15 May 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> 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
First you say his writings are deeply political. Then you
ask how anyone can fail to offer enlightenment about real political issues
who is deeply political. Not whimpish thinking, certainly, but it is bad
thinking.
Anyone who thinks deeply politically should be required to offer comments
and step-by-step instructions for every real political issue? That doesn't
seem to follow at all. Montesquieu's thought was deeply political but he
doesn't have an answer for everything. He explains how culture affects
politics; discusses the sometimes causal role of the environment in
shaping that culture; identifies the primary "principles" of various
regimes--all this is deeply political but there are lots of things not
addressed, including some things not addressed even by implication.
Similarly, Hamilton's and Madison's _Federalist Papers_ deal with the role
of "interest groups" and self-interest in forming a workable polity, but
they don't pretend to provide guidance for handling every vexing case that
comes up (such as our Nazis marching through Skokie, etc.).
And so it's not just Foucault who fails to provide specific (even
implicatory) guidance for responding to today's particular headline. To
think otherwise is simply to misconstrue not just Foucault, but political
thought in general.
One thing Foucault does think, however, is that the usual ways of
recouperating specific events into moral schemes (Kantian universalism
etc.) are quite faulty for reasons many on this list have discussed. But
for some reason we never see a defense of those outdated and themselves
often disastrous tools from the anti-whimpish thinking corner.
--John
> 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
First you say his writings are deeply political. Then you
ask how anyone can fail to offer enlightenment about real political issues
who is deeply political. Not whimpish thinking, certainly, but it is bad
thinking.
Anyone who thinks deeply politically should be required to offer comments
and step-by-step instructions for every real political issue? That doesn't
seem to follow at all. Montesquieu's thought was deeply political but he
doesn't have an answer for everything. He explains how culture affects
politics; discusses the sometimes causal role of the environment in
shaping that culture; identifies the primary "principles" of various
regimes--all this is deeply political but there are lots of things not
addressed, including some things not addressed even by implication.
Similarly, Hamilton's and Madison's _Federalist Papers_ deal with the role
of "interest groups" and self-interest in forming a workable polity, but
they don't pretend to provide guidance for handling every vexing case that
comes up (such as our Nazis marching through Skokie, etc.).
And so it's not just Foucault who fails to provide specific (even
implicatory) guidance for responding to today's particular headline. To
think otherwise is simply to misconstrue not just Foucault, but political
thought in general.
One thing Foucault does think, however, is that the usual ways of
recouperating specific events into moral schemes (Kantian universalism
etc.) are quite faulty for reasons many on this list have discussed. But
for some reason we never see a defense of those outdated and themselves
often disastrous tools from the anti-whimpish thinking corner.
--John