>
>First, it is not clear to me that it is "the assembled Foucaultians"
>that are having a problem here; surely it is the assembled
>spokespeople for the Anti-postmodernism Industry that are having a
>problem, as they wait in vain for a set of instructions for
>anti-fascist action to issue from Foucault's book on the history of
>punishment in modern France.
Er no, we assembled spokespeople (how nice of you to pigeon hole us so
(in)accrurately) don't have a problem wainting for an ethical train
timetable. What _I_ have a problem with, is the sniping from the margins by
people claim to have found the holy grail but have seem to have no answer
other than to let a "thousand whatevers bloom", but then go on to say that
their position is not neo-conservative. What "anything goes" means in
practice, as John Krige put it, is eveything stays. If you don't subscribe
to "anything goes", then good, but please elaborate on why everything does
not go. That's all a simple little question.
I have to repeat, why the defensive stance? I mean look, you go on:
>
>Second, one of the well-known methods of government used by the German
>state in the Nazi era was to have children monitor their parents and
>inform the authorities about any anti-Nazi (etc.) activities they
>might be engaged in.
And one of the techniques most used throughout history to sustain dominant
modes of thought is a disdainful, 'you simply don't understand'. Well maybe
I don't understand, but maybe that is a result of you not making much sense.
I simply refuse to take on faith that which I find questionable. I don't
believe the priest when he entreats me to take such and such on faith, and I
take the same critical stance vi-a-via everyone, including Foucault. If you
are simply happy to accept the whole thing lock stock and barrel, then
please don't let me stop your disenlightenment. (Ref here to Kant's
enlightenment motto (sapere aude I think), "have the courage to use your own
reason".)
Are you really prepared to suggest that Hobbes
>better prepares us to analyze the power dynamics of this situation
>than does Foucault?
Pardon, what is the difference between Hobbes and Foucault? Foucualt, if he
is anything, is Hobbesian. I mean what is all that stuff about about the
inversion Clautzwitsch and Politics being a war and power being everywhere,
and pessimism and so on...
It is in connection with THESE sorts of
>questions that we need a manner of analyzing power relations that is
>more sophisticated than the one we inherit from early modern political
>philosophy, and which many Marxists (though, I suggest, not Marx)
>have taken over uncritically.
Sorry, I simply can't resist. What do you mean "more sophisticated"? By
whose standards?
>
>Telling us that the bourgeoisie is responsible for fascism is helpful,
>arguably, as a starting point. But it doesn't tell us anything about
>how fascism works.
I can tell you that. By telling lies, which of course is dependent upon its
opposite, truth. But if truth is itself an effect of power and constructed,
how do we tell lies from truth?
>
>That is also what he would have thought about Marxists who today
>regard it is their task to "smash" other theoretical perspectives
>without trying to learn from them.
Oh, oh, oh. We are touchy aren't we. I am not trying to smash anyone. i
simply ask questions (still waiting for answers too).
I will try and pray tonight to see if any insights come.
Sorry!!!
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>First, it is not clear to me that it is "the assembled Foucaultians"
>that are having a problem here; surely it is the assembled
>spokespeople for the Anti-postmodernism Industry that are having a
>problem, as they wait in vain for a set of instructions for
>anti-fascist action to issue from Foucault's book on the history of
>punishment in modern France.
Er no, we assembled spokespeople (how nice of you to pigeon hole us so
(in)accrurately) don't have a problem wainting for an ethical train
timetable. What _I_ have a problem with, is the sniping from the margins by
people claim to have found the holy grail but have seem to have no answer
other than to let a "thousand whatevers bloom", but then go on to say that
their position is not neo-conservative. What "anything goes" means in
practice, as John Krige put it, is eveything stays. If you don't subscribe
to "anything goes", then good, but please elaborate on why everything does
not go. That's all a simple little question.
I have to repeat, why the defensive stance? I mean look, you go on:
>
>Second, one of the well-known methods of government used by the German
>state in the Nazi era was to have children monitor their parents and
>inform the authorities about any anti-Nazi (etc.) activities they
>might be engaged in.
And one of the techniques most used throughout history to sustain dominant
modes of thought is a disdainful, 'you simply don't understand'. Well maybe
I don't understand, but maybe that is a result of you not making much sense.
I simply refuse to take on faith that which I find questionable. I don't
believe the priest when he entreats me to take such and such on faith, and I
take the same critical stance vi-a-via everyone, including Foucault. If you
are simply happy to accept the whole thing lock stock and barrel, then
please don't let me stop your disenlightenment. (Ref here to Kant's
enlightenment motto (sapere aude I think), "have the courage to use your own
reason".)
Are you really prepared to suggest that Hobbes
>better prepares us to analyze the power dynamics of this situation
>than does Foucault?
Pardon, what is the difference between Hobbes and Foucault? Foucualt, if he
is anything, is Hobbesian. I mean what is all that stuff about about the
inversion Clautzwitsch and Politics being a war and power being everywhere,
and pessimism and so on...
It is in connection with THESE sorts of
>questions that we need a manner of analyzing power relations that is
>more sophisticated than the one we inherit from early modern political
>philosophy, and which many Marxists (though, I suggest, not Marx)
>have taken over uncritically.
Sorry, I simply can't resist. What do you mean "more sophisticated"? By
whose standards?
>
>Telling us that the bourgeoisie is responsible for fascism is helpful,
>arguably, as a starting point. But it doesn't tell us anything about
>how fascism works.
I can tell you that. By telling lies, which of course is dependent upon its
opposite, truth. But if truth is itself an effect of power and constructed,
how do we tell lies from truth?
>
>That is also what he would have thought about Marxists who today
>regard it is their task to "smash" other theoretical perspectives
>without trying to learn from them.
Oh, oh, oh. We are touchy aren't we. I am not trying to smash anyone. i
simply ask questions (still waiting for answers too).
I will try and pray tonight to see if any insights come.
Sorry!!!
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------