Re: Secondary Sources

Miller's book is well-written psychological reductivism. The primary premise is
that Foucault wanted to live a 'dangerous' experimental sex life, and then all
Foucault's texts and activities are lined up to support this thesis. For
instance, he then paints Foucault of the 60's as a Maoist. Well, asuredly French
Maoists of the 60's are a special breed, but read his texts, read what he says
about history, about Marx, etc in the 60's and then tell me that Maoism offers
the window to undersanding -- I don't think so.

Doug Henwood wrote:
> HUBDIL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >I would not recommend Miller's work for any reason. One should focus
> >on the texts themselves and supplement them with the many interviews.
> This seems to be a common opinion among Foucault fans; it reminds me of the
> reaction in Charlottesville - the physical home of this list, and as its
> very address suggests, the epicenter of Jefferson worship (the "village"
> part comes from Jefferson's reference to the university he founded as an
> "academical village") - when Fawn Brodie's bio of the slaveholder was
> published, and even of the reaction of the Catholic church to Hitchens'
> book on Mother Teresa.
> Just what's wrong with Miller?
> Doug

Partial thread listing: