Miles Jackson wrote:
>This question is completely irrelevant to a Foucauldian analysis.
>Foucault is not trying to be a philosopher arguing for idealism or
>materialism; he is primarily a historian noting how discourse is
>embedded in various social contexts, its uses, its effects. All
>this has nothing to do with asking about the role of "the real"
>on our use of language and discourse.
>
>--A simple example. Imagine I want to do a Foucauldian analysis
>of religious discourse and practice in a society that worships a
>panopoly of deities. I study the religious texts, observe
>religious practices, and note how discourse and practice weave
>the panopoly of deities into mundane, everyday social existence;
>how, in a social sense, the deities are made real to the people.
>Now, in order to carry out this analysis, the ontological question
>is irrelevant. Do the deities really exist or not? Are the
>religious texts ontologically valid? These are interesting
>theological questions, but they have nothing to do with
>understanding the use of language and discourse in society.
What frustrates me about this kind of analysis is that it never asks why
these religious texts and rituals took the form they do - the causes of
discourses as well as their effects.
Doug
>This question is completely irrelevant to a Foucauldian analysis.
>Foucault is not trying to be a philosopher arguing for idealism or
>materialism; he is primarily a historian noting how discourse is
>embedded in various social contexts, its uses, its effects. All
>this has nothing to do with asking about the role of "the real"
>on our use of language and discourse.
>
>--A simple example. Imagine I want to do a Foucauldian analysis
>of religious discourse and practice in a society that worships a
>panopoly of deities. I study the religious texts, observe
>religious practices, and note how discourse and practice weave
>the panopoly of deities into mundane, everyday social existence;
>how, in a social sense, the deities are made real to the people.
>Now, in order to carry out this analysis, the ontological question
>is irrelevant. Do the deities really exist or not? Are the
>religious texts ontologically valid? These are interesting
>theological questions, but they have nothing to do with
>understanding the use of language and discourse in society.
What frustrates me about this kind of analysis is that it never asks why
these religious texts and rituals took the form they do - the causes of
discourses as well as their effects.
Doug