Matthew,
your thoughts reminded me of another sentiment expressed by Deleuze,
from 'A Portrait of Foucault', in _Negotiations_. He writes, "The
objections people make, even the questions they pose, always come from a
safe ashore, and they're like lumps of mud flung at you to knock you down
and stop you getting anywhere rather than any help: objections always come
from lazy, mediocre people, as Foucault knew better than anyone." It's
been remarked that toward the end of the 1970's Foucault was expressing his
weariness with his duties at the College de France. No doubt he was also
tired, at times, of constantly having to explain himself. An instance
comes to mind--I forget where I read it--where Foucault tells of a filmaker
dropping by in Paris, to visit. They shared some wine and some food, and
talked no more than 20 minutes in 8 hours. I wonder whether it was more
out of respect for the enigma of the world that Foucault would remain
silent to his critics. The more ludricrous ones clearly angered him; and
his response could be vicious. Steiner is a definate example (from 1971),
but there's also Foucault's response to Lawrence Stone's essay in the _New
York Review of Books_ (in 1983).
But it doesn't seem to me that Baudrillard is lazy. He would seem in a
different category to some of the hack critics who were barely worth
responding to. I would even say that Baudrillard, in certain ways, is more
worthy of a response than Derrida. For sure Derrida's hardly lazy either,
but the force of his critique doesn't seem to me nearly as 'productive'--a
word we must use with care--as Baudrillard's.
_____________________________________________________
Ian Robert Douglas,
Associate Lecturer & Fulbright Fellow,
Watson Institute of International Studies,
Brown University, Box 1831,
130 Hope Street,
Providence, RI 02912
tel: 401 863-2420
fax: 401 863-2192
"Is there something 'dangerous' in Foucault's thought
that also explains the passion it continues to arouse?"
- "Dangerous, yes, because there's a violence in Foucault.
An intense violence, mastered, controlled, and turned
into courage." - Gilles Deleuze
your thoughts reminded me of another sentiment expressed by Deleuze,
from 'A Portrait of Foucault', in _Negotiations_. He writes, "The
objections people make, even the questions they pose, always come from a
safe ashore, and they're like lumps of mud flung at you to knock you down
and stop you getting anywhere rather than any help: objections always come
from lazy, mediocre people, as Foucault knew better than anyone." It's
been remarked that toward the end of the 1970's Foucault was expressing his
weariness with his duties at the College de France. No doubt he was also
tired, at times, of constantly having to explain himself. An instance
comes to mind--I forget where I read it--where Foucault tells of a filmaker
dropping by in Paris, to visit. They shared some wine and some food, and
talked no more than 20 minutes in 8 hours. I wonder whether it was more
out of respect for the enigma of the world that Foucault would remain
silent to his critics. The more ludricrous ones clearly angered him; and
his response could be vicious. Steiner is a definate example (from 1971),
but there's also Foucault's response to Lawrence Stone's essay in the _New
York Review of Books_ (in 1983).
But it doesn't seem to me that Baudrillard is lazy. He would seem in a
different category to some of the hack critics who were barely worth
responding to. I would even say that Baudrillard, in certain ways, is more
worthy of a response than Derrida. For sure Derrida's hardly lazy either,
but the force of his critique doesn't seem to me nearly as 'productive'--a
word we must use with care--as Baudrillard's.
_____________________________________________________
Ian Robert Douglas,
Associate Lecturer & Fulbright Fellow,
Watson Institute of International Studies,
Brown University, Box 1831,
130 Hope Street,
Providence, RI 02912
tel: 401 863-2420
fax: 401 863-2192
"Is there something 'dangerous' in Foucault's thought
that also explains the passion it continues to arouse?"
- "Dangerous, yes, because there's a violence in Foucault.
An intense violence, mastered, controlled, and turned
into courage." - Gilles Deleuze