Alex, I agree with the following:
>All truths, all paradigms, all ideologies leave something out, of course;
>isn't that what deconstruction - influenced by Foucault - has taught us to
>be aware of?
Then you go on to say:
>But what was/is the next step?
You pause, and state:
>For a while a lot of important
>feminist and race theory made important criticisms and proposed alternate
>paradigms and truths toward which we might build.
You ask:
>Have they been realized?
>To what degree? How have this alternative truths become generally accepted
>truths and incorporated into institutions and dominating discourses?
My comment: I agree that "All truths, all paradigms, all ideologies leave
something out", but I fail to see how it leads to this last paragraph.
Nevertheless, it is a brilliant statement. It leads me to think about
critique towards reason. If reason and logic has been so pervasive in
society, since the enlightenment, why hasn't mankind achieved more than
what is around us today?
Alex, you ending remark is:
>What I think Foucault has left us are tools for understanding, analyzing and
>critiquing but has he left us tools for articulating and implementing a
>better world? My priorities are A - how do create a world that resembles A?
>What ways might we "use" Foucault's (and other theorists') analysis of
>social power ultimately to create (not just criticized; or first crticize,
>then create). When I think about a lot of classic theory, it was about
>imagining new, better socities; modern theory is more critical, less
>constructive; and postmodern theory (it seems to me) is extremely critical
>and not that much at all constructive.
There are of course many level to these questions. One is the "theme" of
the role of science in society. If you ask in what ways F might aid the
construction of a better society, you might be influence by the idea that
universities and science reports should be designed to one way or another
help and support society, which is not a bad idea. However, in what way
this "aid" is coming, is open for debate. If F is "extremely critical" and
"not that much at all constructive", maybe that is his contribution? If it
makes someone think about his or her own contribution to new, better
socities.
Kent Lofgren
student
University of Umea
Pedagogiska Institutionen
S-901 87 Umea
Sweden
Tel: 46 + (0)90 - 786 64 32 (office)
Fax: 46 + (0)90 - 786 66 93
>All truths, all paradigms, all ideologies leave something out, of course;
>isn't that what deconstruction - influenced by Foucault - has taught us to
>be aware of?
Then you go on to say:
>But what was/is the next step?
You pause, and state:
>For a while a lot of important
>feminist and race theory made important criticisms and proposed alternate
>paradigms and truths toward which we might build.
You ask:
>Have they been realized?
>To what degree? How have this alternative truths become generally accepted
>truths and incorporated into institutions and dominating discourses?
My comment: I agree that "All truths, all paradigms, all ideologies leave
something out", but I fail to see how it leads to this last paragraph.
Nevertheless, it is a brilliant statement. It leads me to think about
critique towards reason. If reason and logic has been so pervasive in
society, since the enlightenment, why hasn't mankind achieved more than
what is around us today?
Alex, you ending remark is:
>What I think Foucault has left us are tools for understanding, analyzing and
>critiquing but has he left us tools for articulating and implementing a
>better world? My priorities are A - how do create a world that resembles A?
>What ways might we "use" Foucault's (and other theorists') analysis of
>social power ultimately to create (not just criticized; or first crticize,
>then create). When I think about a lot of classic theory, it was about
>imagining new, better socities; modern theory is more critical, less
>constructive; and postmodern theory (it seems to me) is extremely critical
>and not that much at all constructive.
There are of course many level to these questions. One is the "theme" of
the role of science in society. If you ask in what ways F might aid the
construction of a better society, you might be influence by the idea that
universities and science reports should be designed to one way or another
help and support society, which is not a bad idea. However, in what way
this "aid" is coming, is open for debate. If F is "extremely critical" and
"not that much at all constructive", maybe that is his contribution? If it
makes someone think about his or her own contribution to new, better
socities.
Kent Lofgren
student
University of Umea
Pedagogiska Institutionen
S-901 87 Umea
Sweden
Tel: 46 + (0)90 - 786 64 32 (office)
Fax: 46 + (0)90 - 786 66 93