I heartily agree with what you wrote, Robert.
Not only does this kind of humiliation tactics degrade discussion, I
think there is also a point to be made about becoming so intellectual
about Foucault that we fail to try and work out implications for what he
wrote on a list like this.
To borrow from Deleuze, our thinking needs to be rhizomatic, to spread,
to engage new and strange fields of discourse (this is what Foucault
does with his amazing array of archival source material in, say, Madness
and Civilisation). Being elitist about what provokes reflection and
thought is just stupid, and being critical about the style in which is
done betrays an ignorance of the manner in which style is part of the
'magic of truth-telling'.
Just as power is everywhere and nowhere, opportunities for resistance
abound also: Paglia, Vogue, the Beatles, shopping, kaleidoscopes,
restaurants, internet discussion groups.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert F Carley wrote:
>there is a disparaging proliferation of intellectual elitism
circulating
>on this list regarding the treatment of particular members of the list.
>
>Ideally, this list represents a public forum which has, imposed upon
it,
>particular configurations and valuations which, in many cases, reflect
>institutional mechanisms that are common to universities. That is to
say,
>"many of the participants in this discussion" come from colleges and
>universities: disciplines which are imbibed in administrative and
>bureaucratic structures and specific (valorized) intellecutal cultures.
>And, "some of us" do not. "Some of us," as
>particular disciplines stress, organize our readings under the weight
of
>social relations through the pleateaus of various "historical" moments,
>eg. through the elaboration of particular geneaologies, in complement
with
>a kind of theoretical hegemony, allegiance, what have you and "some of
us"
>are not going to approach the text in that way. If connections are
made
>through a particular cathected practice indicative of a Barthsian
>"jouissance" rather than vis-a-vis some other practice perhaps folks on
>the list should discuss problems with methodology instead of poking fun
>or, worse, attempting to humiliate a participant off of the list...
>
>I really think that these "tactics" are deplorable and I would be
>miserable in a class discussion that took this tenor.
>
>Robert Carley
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Not only does this kind of humiliation tactics degrade discussion, I
think there is also a point to be made about becoming so intellectual
about Foucault that we fail to try and work out implications for what he
wrote on a list like this.
To borrow from Deleuze, our thinking needs to be rhizomatic, to spread,
to engage new and strange fields of discourse (this is what Foucault
does with his amazing array of archival source material in, say, Madness
and Civilisation). Being elitist about what provokes reflection and
thought is just stupid, and being critical about the style in which is
done betrays an ignorance of the manner in which style is part of the
'magic of truth-telling'.
Just as power is everywhere and nowhere, opportunities for resistance
abound also: Paglia, Vogue, the Beatles, shopping, kaleidoscopes,
restaurants, internet discussion groups.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert F Carley wrote:
>there is a disparaging proliferation of intellectual elitism
circulating
>on this list regarding the treatment of particular members of the list.
>
>Ideally, this list represents a public forum which has, imposed upon
it,
>particular configurations and valuations which, in many cases, reflect
>institutional mechanisms that are common to universities. That is to
say,
>"many of the participants in this discussion" come from colleges and
>universities: disciplines which are imbibed in administrative and
>bureaucratic structures and specific (valorized) intellecutal cultures.
>And, "some of us" do not. "Some of us," as
>particular disciplines stress, organize our readings under the weight
of
>social relations through the pleateaus of various "historical" moments,
>eg. through the elaboration of particular geneaologies, in complement
with
>a kind of theoretical hegemony, allegiance, what have you and "some of
us"
>are not going to approach the text in that way. If connections are
made
>through a particular cathected practice indicative of a Barthsian
>"jouissance" rather than vis-a-vis some other practice perhaps folks on
>the list should discuss problems with methodology instead of poking fun
>or, worse, attempting to humiliate a participant off of the list...
>
>I really think that these "tactics" are deplorable and I would be
>miserable in a class discussion that took this tenor.
>
>Robert Carley
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com