On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Sure. That sounds about right. But Foucault still can't (or doesn't want
> to) explain what gives rise to the 'network of agents' through which power
> gets exercised.
>
> or my previous posts.) However, the point is that Foucault doesn't (or
> doesn't want to) explain the generation of what JanMohamed calls 'surplus
> power' and how and why 'surplus power' crystalizes in the manner it has--in
> the hands of the ruling class + the governing elite.
Well, there are a lot of things that Foucault doesn't explain. You seem
to be implying that Foucault *should* have explained these things, that
not having done so is a *failure* on his part--a failure for which he is
ethically and politically accountable, maybe, even. I don't know, maybe
you mean to point out that Foucault doesn't explain these things in order
to counter some view holding that Foucault explains everything worth
explaining about politics, or even about power--but I don't know who holds
that kind of view. I don't think Foucault held that view.
I don't mean to pick on you, Yoshie, because, again, I'm not entirely sure
what's motivating your comments here. But I'm becoming increasingly
aggravated by the attitude (and again, this may not be yours, but it is
certainly pervasive in academia) holding that the thing to do with writers
is to point out their *failures*--an attitude which, of course, is
fostered by the competitive nature of academia; the name of the game is to
show why you succeed where everyone before you has failed (else why should
anyone pay attention to *you*?). Or to latch onto one writer--Marx and
Foucault being maybe the most popular--and show why everyone *else* fails
where they succeed. Variations on a game where one is always keeping
score--to show that Marx is winning against Foucault, or Foucault is
winning against Habermas, or you're winning against everyone (or at least
everyone is losing against you, even if you have nothing constructive to
say yourself)--and where the object of the game seems to be to find an
excuse to dismiss everyone else, or everyone but your one hero (which
really means, everyone except the one writer for whom you fancy *yourself*
to be the hero).
To use Foucault's and Deleuze's metaphor of theory-as-toolbox, I think it
makes as much sense to hold the fact that Foucault can't explain what you
want him to explain, whereas Marx can, to be a *failure* of Foucault's as
it does to hold the fact that you can't drive screws with a hammer to be a
*failure* of the hammer's. Different tools for different jobs....
Again, sorry to seem to be picking on you here, Yoshie.
Matthew
----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster University----
"The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
-----------------------------(Michel Foucault)--------------------------------
> Sure. That sounds about right. But Foucault still can't (or doesn't want
> to) explain what gives rise to the 'network of agents' through which power
> gets exercised.
>
> or my previous posts.) However, the point is that Foucault doesn't (or
> doesn't want to) explain the generation of what JanMohamed calls 'surplus
> power' and how and why 'surplus power' crystalizes in the manner it has--in
> the hands of the ruling class + the governing elite.
Well, there are a lot of things that Foucault doesn't explain. You seem
to be implying that Foucault *should* have explained these things, that
not having done so is a *failure* on his part--a failure for which he is
ethically and politically accountable, maybe, even. I don't know, maybe
you mean to point out that Foucault doesn't explain these things in order
to counter some view holding that Foucault explains everything worth
explaining about politics, or even about power--but I don't know who holds
that kind of view. I don't think Foucault held that view.
I don't mean to pick on you, Yoshie, because, again, I'm not entirely sure
what's motivating your comments here. But I'm becoming increasingly
aggravated by the attitude (and again, this may not be yours, but it is
certainly pervasive in academia) holding that the thing to do with writers
is to point out their *failures*--an attitude which, of course, is
fostered by the competitive nature of academia; the name of the game is to
show why you succeed where everyone before you has failed (else why should
anyone pay attention to *you*?). Or to latch onto one writer--Marx and
Foucault being maybe the most popular--and show why everyone *else* fails
where they succeed. Variations on a game where one is always keeping
score--to show that Marx is winning against Foucault, or Foucault is
winning against Habermas, or you're winning against everyone (or at least
everyone is losing against you, even if you have nothing constructive to
say yourself)--and where the object of the game seems to be to find an
excuse to dismiss everyone else, or everyone but your one hero (which
really means, everyone except the one writer for whom you fancy *yourself*
to be the hero).
To use Foucault's and Deleuze's metaphor of theory-as-toolbox, I think it
makes as much sense to hold the fact that Foucault can't explain what you
want him to explain, whereas Marx can, to be a *failure* of Foucault's as
it does to hold the fact that you can't drive screws with a hammer to be a
*failure* of the hammer's. Different tools for different jobs....
Again, sorry to seem to be picking on you here, Yoshie.
Matthew
----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster University----
"The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
-----------------------------(Michel Foucault)--------------------------------