Foucault's nihilism? foucault himself claimed (in a couple of interviews
mainly) that his histories were in a sense nothing but "fictions" and that
what he was really interested in when writing them was of experiencing some
form of personal transformation! this confirms the kind of account tony
gives in his first post on F's nihilism, that F sought to present as
reasoned, scholarly, work the kind of alternative account(s) that must be
outmanouvered in order for the conventional normal one to hold onto its
claim to validity. Foucault's painstakingly reconstructed genealogies are
therefore not the truth at last coming out, but the more disturbing
unworking of every possibility of truth at last, which is a transformative
experience which Foucault would like to share with his readers.
the last part of tony's mail seems to move either into parody or devil's
advocacy. we finally realize that all we need to do is to remove every
attempt at a regime of truth and miraculously, spontaneously,
anarchistically perhaps, in an orgy of freedom, really good things start to
happen and things are at last radically transformed, nothing less than the
long delayed promise of the enlightenment spontaneously erupts amongst us.
wish fulfilled. this impossible scenario is sometimes what one senses would
be F's utopia, the end of regimes as such, no further attempts to construct
a new order, no more problem solving, etc. Foucault never actually says any
such thing, its only when you attempt to think through the implications of
his thinking in the real world that these possibilities become manifest in
his thought. But then, I don't think Foucault really was much of a practical
thinker, except perhaps in furnishing a whole new generation of scholars
with varyingly imaginative, provocative, contradictory theses with which to
carry out more scholarship in new areas of critical thought - the Foucault
industry.
Overall, I doubt that even this kind of happily anarchistic utopia would
have been of much attraction to F. In the end he seemed to embrace the
utopia of aestheticism, of the beautifully lived life and above all, of a
memorable life, as a way of resisting the ugly deformations of an
administered world. When you attempt to fit this last move of Foucault's
late works on ethics (as aesthetics of existence or as the self's ascetic
stylisation of itself) within the overall output of productive ideas (an
attempt which some F scholars would probably see as futile or outmoded) its
as if Foucault wanted to set an example, much in the way of Nietzsche but
perhaps in the end without as much elegance and originality, of how
problematic existence actually is, let alone truth or knowledge of existence
and how to critically resist its deformations. How successful F. was at this
is still very much up in the air. Sure he has been hailed by some as a saint
for the sheer productivity of new tools with which to carry out analyses, a
proliferation of Foucauldian studies of this or that, for a myriad of
purposes, and endless commentaries on what he actually thought and why, all
of which is only natural, its scholarly debate as usual isn't it?
There are many Foucaults to choose from, and the one I find most attractive
is the one who seems to be a stylish nihilist, the one who gets into trouble
with the likes of Habermas for "performative contradictions". The appeal of
this Foucault is that he reflects a great deal of the nihilism lurking about
in our contemporary world, that many would prefer did not exist or could
smooth away with good-will and careful intersubjective communication, or
whatever. It is doubtful that anything good would necessarily come of this
Foucault, or anybody's well meaning appropriation of his ideas. But then,
its better to will nothing than not will at all, and perhaps less harmful.
Of course, if you dont like this Foucault, just shop around, you're sure to
find the one that best suits you.
cheers
sebastian gurciullo
mainly) that his histories were in a sense nothing but "fictions" and that
what he was really interested in when writing them was of experiencing some
form of personal transformation! this confirms the kind of account tony
gives in his first post on F's nihilism, that F sought to present as
reasoned, scholarly, work the kind of alternative account(s) that must be
outmanouvered in order for the conventional normal one to hold onto its
claim to validity. Foucault's painstakingly reconstructed genealogies are
therefore not the truth at last coming out, but the more disturbing
unworking of every possibility of truth at last, which is a transformative
experience which Foucault would like to share with his readers.
the last part of tony's mail seems to move either into parody or devil's
advocacy. we finally realize that all we need to do is to remove every
attempt at a regime of truth and miraculously, spontaneously,
anarchistically perhaps, in an orgy of freedom, really good things start to
happen and things are at last radically transformed, nothing less than the
long delayed promise of the enlightenment spontaneously erupts amongst us.
wish fulfilled. this impossible scenario is sometimes what one senses would
be F's utopia, the end of regimes as such, no further attempts to construct
a new order, no more problem solving, etc. Foucault never actually says any
such thing, its only when you attempt to think through the implications of
his thinking in the real world that these possibilities become manifest in
his thought. But then, I don't think Foucault really was much of a practical
thinker, except perhaps in furnishing a whole new generation of scholars
with varyingly imaginative, provocative, contradictory theses with which to
carry out more scholarship in new areas of critical thought - the Foucault
industry.
Overall, I doubt that even this kind of happily anarchistic utopia would
have been of much attraction to F. In the end he seemed to embrace the
utopia of aestheticism, of the beautifully lived life and above all, of a
memorable life, as a way of resisting the ugly deformations of an
administered world. When you attempt to fit this last move of Foucault's
late works on ethics (as aesthetics of existence or as the self's ascetic
stylisation of itself) within the overall output of productive ideas (an
attempt which some F scholars would probably see as futile or outmoded) its
as if Foucault wanted to set an example, much in the way of Nietzsche but
perhaps in the end without as much elegance and originality, of how
problematic existence actually is, let alone truth or knowledge of existence
and how to critically resist its deformations. How successful F. was at this
is still very much up in the air. Sure he has been hailed by some as a saint
for the sheer productivity of new tools with which to carry out analyses, a
proliferation of Foucauldian studies of this or that, for a myriad of
purposes, and endless commentaries on what he actually thought and why, all
of which is only natural, its scholarly debate as usual isn't it?
There are many Foucaults to choose from, and the one I find most attractive
is the one who seems to be a stylish nihilist, the one who gets into trouble
with the likes of Habermas for "performative contradictions". The appeal of
this Foucault is that he reflects a great deal of the nihilism lurking about
in our contemporary world, that many would prefer did not exist or could
smooth away with good-will and careful intersubjective communication, or
whatever. It is doubtful that anything good would necessarily come of this
Foucault, or anybody's well meaning appropriation of his ideas. But then,
its better to will nothing than not will at all, and perhaps less harmful.
Of course, if you dont like this Foucault, just shop around, you're sure to
find the one that best suits you.
cheers
sebastian gurciullo