Darren wrote,
>1. You refer to "the arrogance of having arrived" as if to say Foucault is
>liberating the world from this yoke of arrogance. Much on the contrary.
>'Postmodern' elation at the "openness of being" is an elation only reserved
>to an specific intelligentsia. It is not liberating for those who do not
>have the education to access Foucault etc. it is not liberating for those
>who do not perceive the threat of discourse as more important to their
>survival than anything else. To my mind, much arrogance lies in Foucault
>himself.
"as if to say" is not _what I said_. Please don't puts words into my
mouth. Rather, read what I actually said. It was a reflection precisely
on the likes of Husserl. Foucault never aimed to be some "liberator" of
the masses. Indeed it was against such arrogance that he pitched much of
his thinking (the indignity of speaking for others, etc.). Foucault was
far too aware of the pitfalls of enlightenment. Your criticism is an old
one; a tiresome one--but an important one, on one level. I would suggest
you read the last volumes of the _History of Sexuality_. It should be
eminently clear where Foucault was headed. If people don't have access to
his books, what can he do about it? He did enough when he was alive to
take his place (like any other citizen) in the formation of France's
political will, but do you suggest he become some kind of media superstar
in order to further disseminate his thinking? It's not an arrogance not to
want to do so. If the societies in which we live are constituted in
certain ways in which his thinking becomes inaccessible (which, by the way,
broadly, they are not--and sure, I'm talking about Western societies),
Foucault himself can struggle against that, as we all can. But why do you
need to push this to the extreme, and see Foucault--or place him--in a
position he specifically, on many occaisons, sought to escape: the Great
liberator, the master of truth, the eyes and ears and mouth of the masses.
What contempt there would be in that!
>2. Most modern novels may have ends, but that is not the sole purpose of a
>novel, ie to end.
Did I suggest it was?
>3. As to any apprehension about postmodernism being a "loose and
>conmfortable term". I would suggest that it is a means through which
>avant-garrde intellectuals can justify their existence. It is most
>convenient for those who themselves are "postmodern" because it defies
>definition.
and the point here is that the specific "intelligentsia"--using your
word--that we are talking about, Foucault, Deleuze, Barthes, Baudrillard
(we might also think of Guattari and Virilio), _all_ eschew the term
'postmodernism'. So who are you talking about? Everyone knows the general
poverty of criticism and commentary on these figures; if their ideas are
misshapen, bent back on themselves, separated beyond all recognition from
the problems to which they were initially applied, is that the fault of
these authors? Are they responsible? I don't think so. And as for
Foucault in particular, despite his attempts to efface identity, to be the
one who writes 'in order to have no face', the last impression that I get
from his books is elusivity. On the contrary--he was as clear a thinker as
I think I have yet found. Read _Discipline and Punish_ as an incredible
example. It is not an inaccessible book; it's a remarkable work at the
frontier of both power and exposition.
best wishes/sincerely,
_____________________________________________________
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
"Fire includes heat and light: it is the ardour that
emanates from the heart, the lightning that
flashes from the intellect, which performs
miracles in this world." - Napoleon
http://www.powerfoundation.org
>1. You refer to "the arrogance of having arrived" as if to say Foucault is
>liberating the world from this yoke of arrogance. Much on the contrary.
>'Postmodern' elation at the "openness of being" is an elation only reserved
>to an specific intelligentsia. It is not liberating for those who do not
>have the education to access Foucault etc. it is not liberating for those
>who do not perceive the threat of discourse as more important to their
>survival than anything else. To my mind, much arrogance lies in Foucault
>himself.
"as if to say" is not _what I said_. Please don't puts words into my
mouth. Rather, read what I actually said. It was a reflection precisely
on the likes of Husserl. Foucault never aimed to be some "liberator" of
the masses. Indeed it was against such arrogance that he pitched much of
his thinking (the indignity of speaking for others, etc.). Foucault was
far too aware of the pitfalls of enlightenment. Your criticism is an old
one; a tiresome one--but an important one, on one level. I would suggest
you read the last volumes of the _History of Sexuality_. It should be
eminently clear where Foucault was headed. If people don't have access to
his books, what can he do about it? He did enough when he was alive to
take his place (like any other citizen) in the formation of France's
political will, but do you suggest he become some kind of media superstar
in order to further disseminate his thinking? It's not an arrogance not to
want to do so. If the societies in which we live are constituted in
certain ways in which his thinking becomes inaccessible (which, by the way,
broadly, they are not--and sure, I'm talking about Western societies),
Foucault himself can struggle against that, as we all can. But why do you
need to push this to the extreme, and see Foucault--or place him--in a
position he specifically, on many occaisons, sought to escape: the Great
liberator, the master of truth, the eyes and ears and mouth of the masses.
What contempt there would be in that!
>2. Most modern novels may have ends, but that is not the sole purpose of a
>novel, ie to end.
Did I suggest it was?
>3. As to any apprehension about postmodernism being a "loose and
>conmfortable term". I would suggest that it is a means through which
>avant-garrde intellectuals can justify their existence. It is most
>convenient for those who themselves are "postmodern" because it defies
>definition.
and the point here is that the specific "intelligentsia"--using your
word--that we are talking about, Foucault, Deleuze, Barthes, Baudrillard
(we might also think of Guattari and Virilio), _all_ eschew the term
'postmodernism'. So who are you talking about? Everyone knows the general
poverty of criticism and commentary on these figures; if their ideas are
misshapen, bent back on themselves, separated beyond all recognition from
the problems to which they were initially applied, is that the fault of
these authors? Are they responsible? I don't think so. And as for
Foucault in particular, despite his attempts to efface identity, to be the
one who writes 'in order to have no face', the last impression that I get
from his books is elusivity. On the contrary--he was as clear a thinker as
I think I have yet found. Read _Discipline and Punish_ as an incredible
example. It is not an inaccessible book; it's a remarkable work at the
frontier of both power and exposition.
best wishes/sincerely,
_____________________________________________________
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
"Fire includes heat and light: it is the ardour that
emanates from the heart, the lightning that
flashes from the intellect, which performs
miracles in this world." - Napoleon
http://www.powerfoundation.org