John,
>
>
>To Colin: but there's nothing wrong with pyrrhic victories, are there,
>other than the large losses involved?
Er, not sure. It seems to me to be a matter of perspective. One thing that
troubles me is that to describe the action taken by Themla and Louise as a
victory depends upon a level of conscious intentionality that might be
problematic to certain readings of Foucault. Also, it seems to neglect that
this was probably the only choice available to them at that point in time,
so choice here seems to be a questionable term. Did they jump or were they
pushed? It also seems to me that if any outcome can be described as a
victory, but if the victors are dead then the spoils still go to the
non-victors; how do dead victors know they had (enjoyed seesm the wrong word
here) a victory?.
I mean I suppose we could creatively redescribe the silence of the lambs in
Buchenwald etc, as a sort of victory: the self sacrifice, the stoicism, the
martydom. But aren't we stretching the term, victory, overly here? Equally,
and i know that this is more the reading we have been discussing here rather
than anything Foucault advocates, but if such a redescription is possible
wouldn't it be possible for the (non)victors (but alive) to redescribe their
actions in a positive light by showing how the dead actually were the
winners. Isn't exactly this move the one deployed by some of the Holocaust
denial merchants?
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>To Colin: but there's nothing wrong with pyrrhic victories, are there,
>other than the large losses involved?
Er, not sure. It seems to me to be a matter of perspective. One thing that
troubles me is that to describe the action taken by Themla and Louise as a
victory depends upon a level of conscious intentionality that might be
problematic to certain readings of Foucault. Also, it seems to neglect that
this was probably the only choice available to them at that point in time,
so choice here seems to be a questionable term. Did they jump or were they
pushed? It also seems to me that if any outcome can be described as a
victory, but if the victors are dead then the spoils still go to the
non-victors; how do dead victors know they had (enjoyed seesm the wrong word
here) a victory?.
I mean I suppose we could creatively redescribe the silence of the lambs in
Buchenwald etc, as a sort of victory: the self sacrifice, the stoicism, the
martydom. But aren't we stretching the term, victory, overly here? Equally,
and i know that this is more the reading we have been discussing here rather
than anything Foucault advocates, but if such a redescription is possible
wouldn't it be possible for the (non)victors (but alive) to redescribe their
actions in a positive light by showing how the dead actually were the
winners. Isn't exactly this move the one deployed by some of the Holocaust
denial merchants?
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------