[I don't think this went through yesterday so I'm sending it again.]
Colin,
Since this discussion is getting longer, I will try to keep my responses brief.
>>>
>>>Leave me alone, ask not who I am and what I do, just let me do it eh? A
>>>perfect fascist line.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe. But given your above claim to the possibility of different readings
>>and my understanding of the number of possible readings of a text to be
>>indeterminate, to interpret that comment as strictly fascist certainly is
>>not the only possible one.
>
>No I am not claiming that it is fascism but that such replies can be used to
>hide various approaches. Moreover, I accept that you can get a different
>reading, my point is more that my reading of the quote is at least one and
>this worries me. I don't like this quote at all although i know many
>Foucaultians are quite taken with it. Yes, I can see the attraction if you
>are a marginalised dissident then it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to
>take, but if you are a homocidal fascist then it equally well serves to
>elide questioning.
But do the potential political repercussions lie solely with the author? I
think Foucault was acknowledging that the function of the author could not
have total control of the life of the interpretations of the work.
Nietzsche realized this as well. And look at how his work has been used by
all sorts of political movements. The way I read F is that one must write
despite the possible appropriation of one's words beyond the author's
intentions. I don't find that irresponsible. Can you hold Hegel or Marx
responsible for Stalin? If anything I would say that the responsibility
lies with the reader of the text.
>
>I reject this reading because I find nothing
>>in Foucault to support his being a fascist.
>
>I am not suggesting he was. My apologies if you have taken me to be
>suggesting this. I am not interested in Foucault the man, I thought I made
>this clear, it is his philosophical framework that concerns me, and nor am a
>saying that that is fascist, it is more a question of how it would refute
>fascism and why?
>
Sorry about that. I understood what you meant. It should have read "his
work being fascist". But I will take responsibility for my words.
>. But he does not think the problem of fascism is
>>exclusively to be found in explicit fascist declarations (such as one might
>>find on the newsgroup). To silence the newsgroup is also a form of fascism
>>just as possibly dangerous as the potential effects caused by the
>>newsgroup.
>
>But the question still remains Sean, when would a Foucaultain silence, when
>is the time to move? How many people have to suffer before we say to someone
>you must stop your activities. I am not claiming that the answers are easy,
>not that I know them all, I am claiming that under certain readings of
>Foucault the answer is never. This is problematic no?
>
I hesitate to say this, because it seems I'm conceding to your point, but I
don't think he would act any differently than you or I or any other
rational person in contemporary society. But he doesn't need his work to
inform him of that. I don't think anyone needs a philosophy to tell them
how they should act. And I think that is why he can perform a genealogy of
what we do, say, and think without needing to constantly measure it against
a moral imperative.
>>
>>"that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected.
>>...The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the precise moment when
>>the facts became incontrovertable, when it was forbidden to say that the
>>emperor had no clothes. The intellectual spoke the truth to those who had
>>yet to see it, in the name of those who were forbidden to speak the truth;
>>he was conscience, consciousness, and eloquence." ("Intellectuals and
>>Power", 207)
>
>But this is exactly the point, in naming the traditional intellectual thus
>and saying that this role is no longer viable or ethically responsible he
>his, in effect, arguing that intellectuals should not play this role. Also,
>I think he seriously underplays the manner in which intellectual ideas are
>not solely, although they are to a certain extent, in the control of the
>intellectuals. Hence the masses do not need the intellectuals to tell them
>what to do, but rather, the ideas intellectuals produce get used whatever
>the intellectuals think their role should be. And if you tell people that
>truth is simply an effect of power, then the tacit recomendation is to get
>as much power as is possible.
>
> It may go
>>like this: Despite the citizen's demand that the intellectual no longer
>>tell him/her what to do, because he/she knows it perfectly well, there is
>>the issue of the background of largely unarticulated beliefs that the
>>citizen is not aware of in its everyday activity (how the citizen's actions
>>affect other actions). The contemporary citizen's everyday activities do
>>not require him/her to articulate these beliefs in order to do what s/he
>>does. And that is why the intellectual's committments today may be less
>>about informing the citizen of what s/he should do, and more about
>>explicating the background of largely unarticulated beliefs, including
>>contemporary moralities. It is this critical activity which, I think, can
>>only enrich one's self-understanding as a citizen, but it certainly is not
>>a requirement of being a citizen. Is this naive? Is it fascist?
>
>Absolutely not, it sounds very much as I would describe the role. But (1) it
>is driven by a certain morality (I simply don't accept the notion of value
>freedom); and, (2) the knowledge produced can have real effects. Hence, the
>knowledge of the background, which was once unknown can have real, and
>possibly emancipatory effects. But I am not sure the approach you describe
>could be correctly describes as what Foucault suggests, since your position
>seems to imply that there is a background to be discovered as opposed to
>constructed. I agree with you (if I have undertstood you right), but wonder
>whether the process you describe is consistent with Foucault, it seems more
>Marxist to me.
>
Where have you read that for Foucault the background is to be constructed?
I read him as explicating the background, although realising, following
Heidegger, that the background can never be fully articulable. And yes, I
read some Marx in his work as well, though I wouldn't call it Marxist.
>
>>
>>The traditional intellectual was always affiliated with a political regime,
>>or at least served as the representatve of the "truth", as it did for
>>instance in Lenin or Gramsci. I think Foucault, after 68, finds the
>>political function of traditional intellectuals to be oppressive to people
>>and so he rejects that function, and he subsequently does not tell people
>>how to think or act, ethically or otherwise.
>
>Been over this, Yes he does by telling them the role of an intellectual is
>not to be that of a traditional intellectual.
>
But if the traditional intellectual is an agent of power, how can s/he
accurately and without deception represent the real interests of the
people?
Are you saying that he cannot avoid the role of "traditional intellectual"
even when he pronounces otherwise?
>But that does not mean that
>>these same people could not find something useful or even dangerous in his
>>work if they read him that way. That choice, or whether to read Foucault
>>at all, is up to them.
>
>No it is not all up to them. Just as racist literature is not simply a
>function of the reader.
Yes but readers have the responsibility whether to accept it or not, that's
critical thought.
Writers have a responsibilty. Sure they cannot be
>held totally responsible, just as if you interpret this post as advocating
>fascism, I can't stop you.
If you were advocating fascism I certainly would not silence you from doing
so. But I don't have to accept it and I can certainly try to persuade you
otherwise.
But I can at least partially control the process
>by not using certain words, phrases and ideas. Otherwise, what do we bother
>communicating?
>
Consciously, yes you would and perhaps should try to avoid those
interpretations. But perhaps you could be unintentionally writing
something that could be interpreted as fascist. Had Nietzsche known of the
effect his work would have on the Nazis, don't you think he would have
written differently?
>Well, although [the background] never remains the same it must display a
>certain level of
>stability or else we could never understand each other. Nor would I want to
>ground morality in some ahistorical idea. But what is our present morality
>grounded in.
I would say that our morality is grounded in our present circumstances,
what we believe about what we are doing. Should those circumstances change
then so too would our moralities. Perhaps an understanding of the history
of moralities does not contribute to one's acting now as a moral agent, I
don't think it has to. Like I said above, you don't need a moral
philosophy in order to act morally. And I think in his introduction to
_Foucault: A Critical Reader_ David Hoy puts this well:
"Political Theorists like Walzer and Taylor think that Foucault's social
criticism tacitly presupposesthe ideals of freedom, truth, justice, and
progress that he discounts. Foucault's line of response has been the
indirect one of denying that he either is or needs to be a political
theorist. Not a political theorist but instead a critical historian, his
interests are different, and require no political self-justification.
"As a historian he has been trying to locate cases where these
traditional ideals have served only as empty notions blinding humanitarian
theroists to the historical reality of the spread of oppressive and
conformist tendencies in modern societies. He discounts these values
because he is looking at another level than usually addressed by political
theorists, who are concerned more with principles that individual and
collective agents can explicitly espouse and deliberately pursue. Broad,
impersonal social and historical developments may have little direct
connection with what agents chosse to do or what they think they are doing.
As a historian of movements of longer duration, Foucault's scope of
analysis may not seem to include factors that individuals could normally
take into account in formulating their own plans of action." (p.12)
Thanks again Colin for another thought-provoking exchange.
Sean
Colin,
Since this discussion is getting longer, I will try to keep my responses brief.
>>>
>>>Leave me alone, ask not who I am and what I do, just let me do it eh? A
>>>perfect fascist line.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe. But given your above claim to the possibility of different readings
>>and my understanding of the number of possible readings of a text to be
>>indeterminate, to interpret that comment as strictly fascist certainly is
>>not the only possible one.
>
>No I am not claiming that it is fascism but that such replies can be used to
>hide various approaches. Moreover, I accept that you can get a different
>reading, my point is more that my reading of the quote is at least one and
>this worries me. I don't like this quote at all although i know many
>Foucaultians are quite taken with it. Yes, I can see the attraction if you
>are a marginalised dissident then it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to
>take, but if you are a homocidal fascist then it equally well serves to
>elide questioning.
But do the potential political repercussions lie solely with the author? I
think Foucault was acknowledging that the function of the author could not
have total control of the life of the interpretations of the work.
Nietzsche realized this as well. And look at how his work has been used by
all sorts of political movements. The way I read F is that one must write
despite the possible appropriation of one's words beyond the author's
intentions. I don't find that irresponsible. Can you hold Hegel or Marx
responsible for Stalin? If anything I would say that the responsibility
lies with the reader of the text.
>
>I reject this reading because I find nothing
>>in Foucault to support his being a fascist.
>
>I am not suggesting he was. My apologies if you have taken me to be
>suggesting this. I am not interested in Foucault the man, I thought I made
>this clear, it is his philosophical framework that concerns me, and nor am a
>saying that that is fascist, it is more a question of how it would refute
>fascism and why?
>
Sorry about that. I understood what you meant. It should have read "his
work being fascist". But I will take responsibility for my words.
>. But he does not think the problem of fascism is
>>exclusively to be found in explicit fascist declarations (such as one might
>>find on the newsgroup). To silence the newsgroup is also a form of fascism
>>just as possibly dangerous as the potential effects caused by the
>>newsgroup.
>
>But the question still remains Sean, when would a Foucaultain silence, when
>is the time to move? How many people have to suffer before we say to someone
>you must stop your activities. I am not claiming that the answers are easy,
>not that I know them all, I am claiming that under certain readings of
>Foucault the answer is never. This is problematic no?
>
I hesitate to say this, because it seems I'm conceding to your point, but I
don't think he would act any differently than you or I or any other
rational person in contemporary society. But he doesn't need his work to
inform him of that. I don't think anyone needs a philosophy to tell them
how they should act. And I think that is why he can perform a genealogy of
what we do, say, and think without needing to constantly measure it against
a moral imperative.
>>
>>"that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected.
>>...The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the precise moment when
>>the facts became incontrovertable, when it was forbidden to say that the
>>emperor had no clothes. The intellectual spoke the truth to those who had
>>yet to see it, in the name of those who were forbidden to speak the truth;
>>he was conscience, consciousness, and eloquence." ("Intellectuals and
>>Power", 207)
>
>But this is exactly the point, in naming the traditional intellectual thus
>and saying that this role is no longer viable or ethically responsible he
>his, in effect, arguing that intellectuals should not play this role. Also,
>I think he seriously underplays the manner in which intellectual ideas are
>not solely, although they are to a certain extent, in the control of the
>intellectuals. Hence the masses do not need the intellectuals to tell them
>what to do, but rather, the ideas intellectuals produce get used whatever
>the intellectuals think their role should be. And if you tell people that
>truth is simply an effect of power, then the tacit recomendation is to get
>as much power as is possible.
>
> It may go
>>like this: Despite the citizen's demand that the intellectual no longer
>>tell him/her what to do, because he/she knows it perfectly well, there is
>>the issue of the background of largely unarticulated beliefs that the
>>citizen is not aware of in its everyday activity (how the citizen's actions
>>affect other actions). The contemporary citizen's everyday activities do
>>not require him/her to articulate these beliefs in order to do what s/he
>>does. And that is why the intellectual's committments today may be less
>>about informing the citizen of what s/he should do, and more about
>>explicating the background of largely unarticulated beliefs, including
>>contemporary moralities. It is this critical activity which, I think, can
>>only enrich one's self-understanding as a citizen, but it certainly is not
>>a requirement of being a citizen. Is this naive? Is it fascist?
>
>Absolutely not, it sounds very much as I would describe the role. But (1) it
>is driven by a certain morality (I simply don't accept the notion of value
>freedom); and, (2) the knowledge produced can have real effects. Hence, the
>knowledge of the background, which was once unknown can have real, and
>possibly emancipatory effects. But I am not sure the approach you describe
>could be correctly describes as what Foucault suggests, since your position
>seems to imply that there is a background to be discovered as opposed to
>constructed. I agree with you (if I have undertstood you right), but wonder
>whether the process you describe is consistent with Foucault, it seems more
>Marxist to me.
>
Where have you read that for Foucault the background is to be constructed?
I read him as explicating the background, although realising, following
Heidegger, that the background can never be fully articulable. And yes, I
read some Marx in his work as well, though I wouldn't call it Marxist.
>
>>
>>The traditional intellectual was always affiliated with a political regime,
>>or at least served as the representatve of the "truth", as it did for
>>instance in Lenin or Gramsci. I think Foucault, after 68, finds the
>>political function of traditional intellectuals to be oppressive to people
>>and so he rejects that function, and he subsequently does not tell people
>>how to think or act, ethically or otherwise.
>
>Been over this, Yes he does by telling them the role of an intellectual is
>not to be that of a traditional intellectual.
>
But if the traditional intellectual is an agent of power, how can s/he
accurately and without deception represent the real interests of the
people?
Are you saying that he cannot avoid the role of "traditional intellectual"
even when he pronounces otherwise?
>But that does not mean that
>>these same people could not find something useful or even dangerous in his
>>work if they read him that way. That choice, or whether to read Foucault
>>at all, is up to them.
>
>No it is not all up to them. Just as racist literature is not simply a
>function of the reader.
Yes but readers have the responsibility whether to accept it or not, that's
critical thought.
Writers have a responsibilty. Sure they cannot be
>held totally responsible, just as if you interpret this post as advocating
>fascism, I can't stop you.
If you were advocating fascism I certainly would not silence you from doing
so. But I don't have to accept it and I can certainly try to persuade you
otherwise.
But I can at least partially control the process
>by not using certain words, phrases and ideas. Otherwise, what do we bother
>communicating?
>
Consciously, yes you would and perhaps should try to avoid those
interpretations. But perhaps you could be unintentionally writing
something that could be interpreted as fascist. Had Nietzsche known of the
effect his work would have on the Nazis, don't you think he would have
written differently?
>Well, although [the background] never remains the same it must display a
>certain level of
>stability or else we could never understand each other. Nor would I want to
>ground morality in some ahistorical idea. But what is our present morality
>grounded in.
I would say that our morality is grounded in our present circumstances,
what we believe about what we are doing. Should those circumstances change
then so too would our moralities. Perhaps an understanding of the history
of moralities does not contribute to one's acting now as a moral agent, I
don't think it has to. Like I said above, you don't need a moral
philosophy in order to act morally. And I think in his introduction to
_Foucault: A Critical Reader_ David Hoy puts this well:
"Political Theorists like Walzer and Taylor think that Foucault's social
criticism tacitly presupposesthe ideals of freedom, truth, justice, and
progress that he discounts. Foucault's line of response has been the
indirect one of denying that he either is or needs to be a political
theorist. Not a political theorist but instead a critical historian, his
interests are different, and require no political self-justification.
"As a historian he has been trying to locate cases where these
traditional ideals have served only as empty notions blinding humanitarian
theroists to the historical reality of the spread of oppressive and
conformist tendencies in modern societies. He discounts these values
because he is looking at another level than usually addressed by political
theorists, who are concerned more with principles that individual and
collective agents can explicitly espouse and deliberately pursue. Broad,
impersonal social and historical developments may have little direct
connection with what agents chosse to do or what they think they are doing.
As a historian of movements of longer duration, Foucault's scope of
analysis may not seem to include factors that individuals could normally
take into account in formulating their own plans of action." (p.12)
Thanks again Colin for another thought-provoking exchange.
Sean