Colleagues,
It never occured to me that my satirical, if not ill tempered, response to
Matthew's query about who just how might benefit from Pinochet's possible
trial/conviction, could be taken seriously -- i.e., literally. (That it
was, is indeed interesting, but never mind that for now.) Regardless I want
to apologize for that, and esp. to Pablo and Marcos, whom must be all the
more convinced that there are a lot of politically insipid North Americans.
That the families and friends of former victims of Pinochet's rule want the
man arrested and brought to trial, even if this means using international
law and foreign courts, is good enough warrant for me to fully support
their efforts and desires. That this justice or "retribution" would
largely be symbolic (beyond locating the remains of some of these political
victims), that an international system is involved, and that from a
Nietzchean-purist persepective their efforts or desires might seem suspect,
hardly changes things for me. I realize of course that not only Chileans
(and not only direct relations of thousands of murdered communists) are
involved here, but, really, so what? That such a trial might also help
bring to light how Pinochet came to power -- which is to say with the help
of the U.S. government and the CIA -- would itself be a lovely event. In
fact given Pinochet's backing if not installment by the US, it strikes me
as particularily egregious that someone from this country (or from the
overdeveloped West in general), would object to these efforts on Nietzchean
or conceptual grounds. Talk about moral hand-wringing.
I really do not see the debate or issue here, except from this insipid, and
in fact pious, "Nietzchean-Purist" perspective. As for how this all
relates to Foucault, we might recall his remarks about the ethical
implications of a proletarian revolution:
"When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the
proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just
triumphed, a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power. I can't see what
objection one could make to this."
Obviously the Pinochet-scenario is rather different from this (and F goes
on to note the possible scenario of the proletariat coming to exercise
tryany over itself, which of course would be "objectionable"). But this
quote suggests that Foucault was no Nietzchean- or anarcho- Purist (oddly,
he sounds like a card-carrying Bolshevik). Precisely because morality,
ethics, and justice are strategies of power, one cannot be purist about
them. To acknowledge this, and to acknowledge that like "power" itself,
these strategies/social relations will diasappear simultaneously with the
appearance of flying pigs, therefore means one then inquires into whose
interests are being served by this event around Pinochet and the
world-system. Again, I dont see the mystery about who is.
Finally, just a note about the following dialogue b/w Matthew and Marcos:
At 09:13 PM 11/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Marcos Peralta wrote:
>
> 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.
First off, while it is clear that F's historical studies are richly and
uniquely detailed, it is also easy to overestimate how much archival and
other historical dirty work he did do. This isn't a general criticism,
just a warning against romanticizing him and this dimension of his work.
Moreover:
>> Sincerely, I expected that people in thislist 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.
>
Never mind for now how precarious is the distinction b/w judgment (which is
what I think you mean by "understanding" here?) and "analysis". The
problem with dealing with the present is that one doesn't have the option
of doing years and years of archival work, so one may then bravely and
authoritatively venture forth and actually take a position on something.
With this Pinochet-event, we are talking about the world and history
in-process, and there isnt an archive for it (at least not one like their
is for, say, C.18 France). If we are talking about understanding and
writing the political history of Chile in the 70s or 80s, then indeed much
homework would need to be done. If, however, we are talking about taking a
position on the possible arrest of Pinochet (and one doesnt need to do much
research to place him on the political and ethical spectrums) then,
fortunately, things are easier for us.
best,
Dan
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
It never occured to me that my satirical, if not ill tempered, response to
Matthew's query about who just how might benefit from Pinochet's possible
trial/conviction, could be taken seriously -- i.e., literally. (That it
was, is indeed interesting, but never mind that for now.) Regardless I want
to apologize for that, and esp. to Pablo and Marcos, whom must be all the
more convinced that there are a lot of politically insipid North Americans.
That the families and friends of former victims of Pinochet's rule want the
man arrested and brought to trial, even if this means using international
law and foreign courts, is good enough warrant for me to fully support
their efforts and desires. That this justice or "retribution" would
largely be symbolic (beyond locating the remains of some of these political
victims), that an international system is involved, and that from a
Nietzchean-purist persepective their efforts or desires might seem suspect,
hardly changes things for me. I realize of course that not only Chileans
(and not only direct relations of thousands of murdered communists) are
involved here, but, really, so what? That such a trial might also help
bring to light how Pinochet came to power -- which is to say with the help
of the U.S. government and the CIA -- would itself be a lovely event. In
fact given Pinochet's backing if not installment by the US, it strikes me
as particularily egregious that someone from this country (or from the
overdeveloped West in general), would object to these efforts on Nietzchean
or conceptual grounds. Talk about moral hand-wringing.
I really do not see the debate or issue here, except from this insipid, and
in fact pious, "Nietzchean-Purist" perspective. As for how this all
relates to Foucault, we might recall his remarks about the ethical
implications of a proletarian revolution:
"When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the
proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just
triumphed, a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power. I can't see what
objection one could make to this."
Obviously the Pinochet-scenario is rather different from this (and F goes
on to note the possible scenario of the proletariat coming to exercise
tryany over itself, which of course would be "objectionable"). But this
quote suggests that Foucault was no Nietzchean- or anarcho- Purist (oddly,
he sounds like a card-carrying Bolshevik). Precisely because morality,
ethics, and justice are strategies of power, one cannot be purist about
them. To acknowledge this, and to acknowledge that like "power" itself,
these strategies/social relations will diasappear simultaneously with the
appearance of flying pigs, therefore means one then inquires into whose
interests are being served by this event around Pinochet and the
world-system. Again, I dont see the mystery about who is.
Finally, just a note about the following dialogue b/w Matthew and Marcos:
At 09:13 PM 11/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Marcos Peralta wrote:
>
> 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.
First off, while it is clear that F's historical studies are richly and
uniquely detailed, it is also easy to overestimate how much archival and
other historical dirty work he did do. This isn't a general criticism,
just a warning against romanticizing him and this dimension of his work.
Moreover:
>> Sincerely, I expected that people in thislist 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.
>
Never mind for now how precarious is the distinction b/w judgment (which is
what I think you mean by "understanding" here?) and "analysis". The
problem with dealing with the present is that one doesn't have the option
of doing years and years of archival work, so one may then bravely and
authoritatively venture forth and actually take a position on something.
With this Pinochet-event, we are talking about the world and history
in-process, and there isnt an archive for it (at least not one like their
is for, say, C.18 France). If we are talking about understanding and
writing the political history of Chile in the 70s or 80s, then indeed much
homework would need to be done. If, however, we are talking about taking a
position on the possible arrest of Pinochet (and one doesnt need to do much
research to place him on the political and ethical spectrums) then,
fortunately, things are easier for us.
best,
Dan
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign