Larry Chappell wrote - I think -
'Within a garden, I can leave room for all sorts of unplanned
growths -- or I can manage the garden to be as surprise free as
possible. I do not know which garden is "best" to at least recognize
that they are different.
There is another organic metaphor that may work better than
"cultivation" when trying to talk about freedom. Wilderness is precisely
uncultivated, and it is left (relatively) free from our interference.'
I hate to disturb this Thoreauvian idyll, this garden of
loving-kindness, but it is a bitter world, this world of power and
knowledge.
'From this follows a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the
symbolic field or the domain of signifying structres, and a recourse to
analyses in terms of the genealogy of relations of force, strategic
develoments, and tactics. Here I believe one's point of reference
should not be the great model of language (langue) and signs, but to
that of war and battle' (Truth and Power, p 114 in P/K)
The point is that the subjugated knowledges cannot be left to flourish
in the hedgerows, because in their very nature they amount to a critique
and an attack on the mechanisms of power which currently exist through
the general 'knowledge' of how things work.
It is not for instance possible to maintain a series of power relations
based on the assumption of methodological individualism and at the same
time treat with respect the non-individualistic cultures of the Pacific
Islands.
ciao
Nesta
'Within a garden, I can leave room for all sorts of unplanned
growths -- or I can manage the garden to be as surprise free as
possible. I do not know which garden is "best" to at least recognize
that they are different.
There is another organic metaphor that may work better than
"cultivation" when trying to talk about freedom. Wilderness is precisely
uncultivated, and it is left (relatively) free from our interference.'
I hate to disturb this Thoreauvian idyll, this garden of
loving-kindness, but it is a bitter world, this world of power and
knowledge.
'From this follows a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the
symbolic field or the domain of signifying structres, and a recourse to
analyses in terms of the genealogy of relations of force, strategic
develoments, and tactics. Here I believe one's point of reference
should not be the great model of language (langue) and signs, but to
that of war and battle' (Truth and Power, p 114 in P/K)
The point is that the subjugated knowledges cannot be left to flourish
in the hedgerows, because in their very nature they amount to a critique
and an attack on the mechanisms of power which currently exist through
the general 'knowledge' of how things work.
It is not for instance possible to maintain a series of power relations
based on the assumption of methodological individualism and at the same
time treat with respect the non-individualistic cultures of the Pacific
Islands.
ciao
Nesta