My name is alex. I am new here. I want to follow on with Daniel's
idea on the reception of Foucault's ideas within Laclau-Mouffe'a
approach. I agree with you in principle but I think that the latter
thinkers construct their whole project of Theory of hegemony
precicely in order to go beyond Foucaultian political project. In
this sense Foucault has not an insight on hegemony, that is, on the
way of how to construct power, I mean, not only to see power as
productive but also as a production. Productiuon that is always
collective and is done through an extension of the logics of
equivalence and difference in a social space. For Laclau this is the
very definition of what is political.
A difference ( and a problem that I think remains to be solved): the
duality of realm of the discursive/non-discursive in Foucault
(mainly in The Archaeology) which Laclau and Mouffe criticizes in
their book HSS. I would say that the Foucault maintain the idea of
the non-discursive as a quasi-trascendental in order to support then
an ethical stance. The non-discursive is suffering, hanger, that, in
his latter works will ground his idea of "rapport a soi".
Alex.
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:50:16 -0600 "Daniel F. Vukovich"
> It is clear that any discussion about "postmodernism" -- if it is to be
> substantial -- has to begin with somehow defining what one means by it.
> Following Fredric Jameson, I htink the term can be a useful heuristic, if
> an only if one provides it with some socio-historical, if not economic,
> content. To simply equate "pomo" with theory wriiten in France since the
> 60s is rather sloppy. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but precisely none
> of the Big Frenchmen -- least of all Foucault -- called themselves
> "postmodernist." Guattari had especially vicious things to say about the
> term. Baudrillard himself rejects it, and even Lyotard always gave it a
> historical spin.
> You can still call them that, of course, but the burden of proof is thus on
> you.
> If anything, they all strike me as "anti-modern," if you need such a term.
>
> As for who might provide "insight into resistance struggles," clearly
> Foucault has quite properly been seen as potential source. Ask anyone who
> works within Queer Theory, or moreover someone involved in Act Up or
> related activism. But what about the work of Ernesto Laclau and/or Chantal
> Mouffe? If anyone has attempted to bring post-structuralist theory -- and
> the Foucault of the Archeology of Knowledge (on discourse and
> anti-epistemology) is a big source for them -- it is them. So if you or
> anyone else is actually interested in discussing the postmodern question,
> vis a vis Foucault-thought, then perhaps that is one place to begin?
>
> best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> Daniel Vukovich
> English; The Unit for Criticism
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Department of Government Tel: 44-1206-874271
University of Essex Fax: 44-1206-873598
Wivenhoe Park E-mail: ajgrop@xxxxxxxxxxx
Colchester C04 3SQ
England
idea on the reception of Foucault's ideas within Laclau-Mouffe'a
approach. I agree with you in principle but I think that the latter
thinkers construct their whole project of Theory of hegemony
precicely in order to go beyond Foucaultian political project. In
this sense Foucault has not an insight on hegemony, that is, on the
way of how to construct power, I mean, not only to see power as
productive but also as a production. Productiuon that is always
collective and is done through an extension of the logics of
equivalence and difference in a social space. For Laclau this is the
very definition of what is political.
A difference ( and a problem that I think remains to be solved): the
duality of realm of the discursive/non-discursive in Foucault
(mainly in The Archaeology) which Laclau and Mouffe criticizes in
their book HSS. I would say that the Foucault maintain the idea of
the non-discursive as a quasi-trascendental in order to support then
an ethical stance. The non-discursive is suffering, hanger, that, in
his latter works will ground his idea of "rapport a soi".
Alex.
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:50:16 -0600 "Daniel F. Vukovich"
> It is clear that any discussion about "postmodernism" -- if it is to be
> substantial -- has to begin with somehow defining what one means by it.
> Following Fredric Jameson, I htink the term can be a useful heuristic, if
> an only if one provides it with some socio-historical, if not economic,
> content. To simply equate "pomo" with theory wriiten in France since the
> 60s is rather sloppy. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but precisely none
> of the Big Frenchmen -- least of all Foucault -- called themselves
> "postmodernist." Guattari had especially vicious things to say about the
> term. Baudrillard himself rejects it, and even Lyotard always gave it a
> historical spin.
> You can still call them that, of course, but the burden of proof is thus on
> you.
> If anything, they all strike me as "anti-modern," if you need such a term.
>
> As for who might provide "insight into resistance struggles," clearly
> Foucault has quite properly been seen as potential source. Ask anyone who
> works within Queer Theory, or moreover someone involved in Act Up or
> related activism. But what about the work of Ernesto Laclau and/or Chantal
> Mouffe? If anyone has attempted to bring post-structuralist theory -- and
> the Foucault of the Archeology of Knowledge (on discourse and
> anti-epistemology) is a big source for them -- it is them. So if you or
> anyone else is actually interested in discussing the postmodern question,
> vis a vis Foucault-thought, then perhaps that is one place to begin?
>
> best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> Daniel Vukovich
> English; The Unit for Criticism
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Department of Government Tel: 44-1206-874271
University of Essex Fax: 44-1206-873598
Wivenhoe Park E-mail: ajgrop@xxxxxxxxxxx
Colchester C04 3SQ
England