On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Marcos Peralta wrote:
> I agree with Pablo. Most commentaries about this discussion topic have been
> rich in quotes but poor in reflecting historical analysis and in landing
> concrete foucaultian concepts to a specific reality.
I get the feeling that what you, and others, really want is a
Foucault-approved solution to the problem of Pinochet. If that is what
you want, of course you will be disappointed.
> A good foucaultian analysis of the Chilean history will focus -for example-
> in an historical analysis of the networks of power in Chile and its
> evolution from the 70s to the 90s.
Indeed. And in order to produce that kind of analysis, one would have to
be very, very well versed in Chilean history. One would have to do the
kind of thing Foucault did for his historical studies--i.e. spend years
poring over every available scrap of documentation. I would think that
the members of this list could be excused for failing to produce that kind
of analysis in the few days since Ian first brought up the issue.
> Sincerely, I expected that people in this
> list would be able to better use foucaultian tools to understand political
> reality.
A Foucauldian understanding of political reality is not that difficult to
come by, and does not require many words to express. A Foucauldian
*analysis* of a particular political reality is a different thing.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------