On Sat, 17 May 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> John Ransom wrote:
>
> >But notice that A's argument will not help us with regard to the Nazis.
> >That's because political philosophy is too gross a set of categories to
> >micro-manage such things. Another way to put the same point is that an
> >Aristotelian argument could be reasonably employed in favor of both sides
> >of a debate over allowing or disallowing the Nazis to speak.
> >
> >So, first of all, no, I don't read F in order to develop a finer
> >sensibility over how to deal with Nazis; nor, to answer your question more
> >directly, have I recieved any special insight on this issue from F.
> >Second, I make the broader claim that political philosophy as
> >traditionally conceived is not itself crafted to deal with such issues --
> >which does not mean that it is useless, but that it approaches issues on a
> >different and also important level.
>
> The point is not micromanaging. The Nazis and one's reaction to them are
> about as far from micromanaging as politics can get. I am utterly
> dumbfounded that a Foucault scholar can argue that a philosopher whose
> major works are about various forms of political power over the centuries
> is irrelevant to the analysis of and response to a totalitarian political
> movement (especially one that was so adept at the use of speech and
> symbols).
You have a tendency to change the topic in mid-dispute.
> I could almost understand if you said that Verlaine offered no
> insight into Naziism, or ABBA - but Foucault? Why read him at all then? For
> purely aesthetic pleasure?
I primarily read F for insights into oppositional thought, not
totalitarian thought. He's also quite good at discussing the ways
individuals are constructed, though he doesn't do this primarily through a
discussion of speech and symbols. Indeed, it is through a discussion of
how individuals are made that F comes up with some of his best insights
into oppositional possibilites.
>
> I won't even bring up Nietzsche because that would be a low blow.
>
> Doug
>
>
Does that mean that you do not perceive the bit about reading F "for
purely aesthetic pleasure" as being a low blow? It seems to me that you
use a discussion list like this to write _Village Voice_-style letters to
the editor, complete with words like "dumbfounded." No one ever reads the
letters to the editor page of _The Village Voice_ for enlightenment,
however. Instead, everyone glances at it for the same reason they look at
a car wreck: to see if there's any good blood. And there is probably a
straight line leading from the kind of "aesthetic pleasure" experienced
by, on the one hand, car-wreck watchers and _Village Voice_
letters-to-the-editor writers, and the "aesthetics" of violence associated
with fascist thought, on the other.
--John
> John Ransom wrote:
>
> >But notice that A's argument will not help us with regard to the Nazis.
> >That's because political philosophy is too gross a set of categories to
> >micro-manage such things. Another way to put the same point is that an
> >Aristotelian argument could be reasonably employed in favor of both sides
> >of a debate over allowing or disallowing the Nazis to speak.
> >
> >So, first of all, no, I don't read F in order to develop a finer
> >sensibility over how to deal with Nazis; nor, to answer your question more
> >directly, have I recieved any special insight on this issue from F.
> >Second, I make the broader claim that political philosophy as
> >traditionally conceived is not itself crafted to deal with such issues --
> >which does not mean that it is useless, but that it approaches issues on a
> >different and also important level.
>
> The point is not micromanaging. The Nazis and one's reaction to them are
> about as far from micromanaging as politics can get. I am utterly
> dumbfounded that a Foucault scholar can argue that a philosopher whose
> major works are about various forms of political power over the centuries
> is irrelevant to the analysis of and response to a totalitarian political
> movement (especially one that was so adept at the use of speech and
> symbols).
You have a tendency to change the topic in mid-dispute.
> I could almost understand if you said that Verlaine offered no
> insight into Naziism, or ABBA - but Foucault? Why read him at all then? For
> purely aesthetic pleasure?
I primarily read F for insights into oppositional thought, not
totalitarian thought. He's also quite good at discussing the ways
individuals are constructed, though he doesn't do this primarily through a
discussion of speech and symbols. Indeed, it is through a discussion of
how individuals are made that F comes up with some of his best insights
into oppositional possibilites.
>
> I won't even bring up Nietzsche because that would be a low blow.
>
> Doug
>
>
Does that mean that you do not perceive the bit about reading F "for
purely aesthetic pleasure" as being a low blow? It seems to me that you
use a discussion list like this to write _Village Voice_-style letters to
the editor, complete with words like "dumbfounded." No one ever reads the
letters to the editor page of _The Village Voice_ for enlightenment,
however. Instead, everyone glances at it for the same reason they look at
a car wreck: to see if there's any good blood. And there is probably a
straight line leading from the kind of "aesthetic pleasure" experienced
by, on the one hand, car-wreck watchers and _Village Voice_
letters-to-the-editor writers, and the "aesthetics" of violence associated
with fascist thought, on the other.
--John