COLIN WIGHT wrote:
> >Foucault: The role of an intellectual is not to tell others what they have
> >to do.
>
> I agree, who said otherwise? BUT!
>
> By what right would he do so? And remember all the prophecies,
> >promises, injunctions, and programs that intellectuals have managed to
> >formulate over the last two centuries and whose effects we can know see.
>
> Is not Foucault himself guilty of this after all, the assertion that as
> intellectuals we should not tell others what to do is an assertion of what
> intellectuals should or should not do? Non? He is at least telling
> intellectuals what they should do.
>
In Questions on Method F. makes a similar point to the one cited, he
goes on to suggest that relations of power must ultimately be worked
through (endlessly of course) by the people involved in those
struggles. This, I think, gives F. the basis to comment on academics
since that is a realm in which he is directly engaged. To discourse
about the role of the intellectual is one in which F. becomes
constituted. Thus when he says above 'By what right would _he_ do so?'
he is clearly attempting to resist an expectation being placed on
himself.
> The key question I have yet to have answered is when might a Foucautian act
> and why?
But you are still assuming that without F., or any other philosopher we
will not be able to act? F. will not provide the rationale for this or
that action, or the drawing of ethical lines, I don't think anyone is
really disputing this. Does this paralyse we 'Foucaultians'? I don't
think so. If we need philosophers to tell us why we should oppose
fascism then we really are in trouble.
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Foucault: The role of an intellectual is not to tell others what they have
> >to do.
>
> I agree, who said otherwise? BUT!
>
> By what right would he do so? And remember all the prophecies,
> >promises, injunctions, and programs that intellectuals have managed to
> >formulate over the last two centuries and whose effects we can know see.
>
> Is not Foucault himself guilty of this after all, the assertion that as
> intellectuals we should not tell others what to do is an assertion of what
> intellectuals should or should not do? Non? He is at least telling
> intellectuals what they should do.
>
In Questions on Method F. makes a similar point to the one cited, he
goes on to suggest that relations of power must ultimately be worked
through (endlessly of course) by the people involved in those
struggles. This, I think, gives F. the basis to comment on academics
since that is a realm in which he is directly engaged. To discourse
about the role of the intellectual is one in which F. becomes
constituted. Thus when he says above 'By what right would _he_ do so?'
he is clearly attempting to resist an expectation being placed on
himself.
> The key question I have yet to have answered is when might a Foucautian act
> and why?
But you are still assuming that without F., or any other philosopher we
will not be able to act? F. will not provide the rationale for this or
that action, or the drawing of ethical lines, I don't think anyone is
really disputing this. Does this paralyse we 'Foucaultians'? I don't
think so. If we need philosophers to tell us why we should oppose
fascism then we really are in trouble.
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx