Doug wrote:
> But most people don't have the time to study history or
> theory. As long as society is as polarized as ours is that will continue to
> be the case. So I think there's a certain duty for people who do know
> history and theory and who are not happy with the present structure of
> society to share their knowledge and put it to some liberatory use. If
> you've got no idea what to say or do, or don't care, well say so, instead
> of hiding behind a "Who? Me?" pose.
But this idea of "hiding" is just your own interpretation; there are many
different models of the social role of intellectuals, and I don't think
Foucault's ideas on this subject deserve no better than being labeled as
a "Who? Me?" pose. As far as sharing knowledge, it is obvious that
Foucault, like most intellectuals, does share his knowledge: what we are
discussing on this list are the results of this sharing. The knowledge
may or may not be useful for each person's practice; it is disappointing
to some, irrelevant to others, revelatory to yet other others; probably to
most people who read Foucault, it is all three. It is, like all knowledge,
fragmentary, incomplete, subject to revision and supersession, and
in process. It contains dead ends and living roots. I think I am stating
the obvious, but that's because you choose to articulate your dissatisfaction
in ways which, unless one shares your dissatisfaction, make it hard to go
beyond stating the obvious.
I believe that posing certain types of questions that are not currently
being posed is a valuable task. In fact, its value is often much greater
than that of _answering_ questions. My perception of Foucault is that
his strength, and his task, lie in questioning, not answering. Is your
perception different?
-m
> But most people don't have the time to study history or
> theory. As long as society is as polarized as ours is that will continue to
> be the case. So I think there's a certain duty for people who do know
> history and theory and who are not happy with the present structure of
> society to share their knowledge and put it to some liberatory use. If
> you've got no idea what to say or do, or don't care, well say so, instead
> of hiding behind a "Who? Me?" pose.
But this idea of "hiding" is just your own interpretation; there are many
different models of the social role of intellectuals, and I don't think
Foucault's ideas on this subject deserve no better than being labeled as
a "Who? Me?" pose. As far as sharing knowledge, it is obvious that
Foucault, like most intellectuals, does share his knowledge: what we are
discussing on this list are the results of this sharing. The knowledge
may or may not be useful for each person's practice; it is disappointing
to some, irrelevant to others, revelatory to yet other others; probably to
most people who read Foucault, it is all three. It is, like all knowledge,
fragmentary, incomplete, subject to revision and supersession, and
in process. It contains dead ends and living roots. I think I am stating
the obvious, but that's because you choose to articulate your dissatisfaction
in ways which, unless one shares your dissatisfaction, make it hard to go
beyond stating the obvious.
I believe that posing certain types of questions that are not currently
being posed is a valuable task. In fact, its value is often much greater
than that of _answering_ questions. My perception of Foucault is that
his strength, and his task, lie in questioning, not answering. Is your
perception different?
-m