I'll try. Foucault is pretty consistent, I think, in useing commentary
to refer to a discourse which is intended to reveal the deep meaning
of another discourse; this deep meaning being a total mystery to those
who speak that discourse or take it at face value. Think of the
discourse as what people who are addicted to heroin say about
themselves, other people who are addicted and, in general, the how,
what and why of being a junkie. Think of this discourse as life on
heroin from a junkie point of view. As such, it speaks the real
experience of the addict and the real meaning of addiction as a form
of life.
Now imagine a counter-discourse all about addicts and addiction
seen as a problem at the same time moral, medical and social. This
discourse would threat every word out of the addict's mouth, every
thought in the addict's mind and the addict's every action as symtoms
of the problem. This discourse would assert that the addict does not
want what he thinks he wants, is not doing what he thinks he is doing
and does not know what he thinks he knows on the basis of his own
experience.
To gain "insight" into his addiction, the addict must accept that
he is not who he thinks himself to be but who he is described as being
in the writings of policemen and doctors who are fit to speak the
truth of addiction precisely because they are not addicted but rather
sane, healthy and good. This is commentary. It presents the reality
and meaning of the junky's life as a deep secret which the junky can
only come to know by ceasing to be what she is.
This is why I can't take Habermas seriously. I just can't imagine
Herr Doktor, even under ideal speech conditions, having a mutually
satisfying conversation with a crack whore. What would they say to
each other? Confereing together, how would they decide society ought
to deal with the "problem of addiction."
Malcolm X once said that even though both most blacks and most
whites want to solve the "race problem" this really doesn't give us
much of anything because the "race problem" most whites really have
and want to see solved is not the "race problem" most blacks really
have and want to see solved. I think Habermas and the crack whore are
going to find the same about "addiction" I don't think any
meta-language, even a meta-language which allowed each to say
everything he or she wanted to say while being understood perfectly by
the other, will solve the problem even if such a language could be
developed, which i don't think it can.
There are people in this world who could not possibly be who they
think they are if I am who I think I am. I can't talk honestly about
"those people" without resorting to commentary. We are all in the same
boat even though "those people" for me might be "us" for you and "us "
for me might be "those people" for you. The important thing to notice
is that the need to see a "deeper meaning" beneath what someone else
lives as real is often rooted in an irresolvable clash between that
person's sense of what is real and your own. This makes commentary a
mechanism of defense, a form of denial where what is denied is the
radical alterity of the other. I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Tony Michael Roberts
---WIGMOOR FRANCIS <wwfrancs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At 05:10 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Tony Roberts wrote:
>
> >for example, kept the gentleman junkie from expresiing his need with
> >through and for language. In the fifties, the junkie was an invisible
> >man disappeared behind a (in exactly Foucaults' sense) commentary
> >about vice and virtue.
>
> Could you clarify for me the distinction (if any) between commentary
and
> discourse in Foucault?
>
> Regards
>
>
==
"I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order." Michel Foucault
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
to refer to a discourse which is intended to reveal the deep meaning
of another discourse; this deep meaning being a total mystery to those
who speak that discourse or take it at face value. Think of the
discourse as what people who are addicted to heroin say about
themselves, other people who are addicted and, in general, the how,
what and why of being a junkie. Think of this discourse as life on
heroin from a junkie point of view. As such, it speaks the real
experience of the addict and the real meaning of addiction as a form
of life.
Now imagine a counter-discourse all about addicts and addiction
seen as a problem at the same time moral, medical and social. This
discourse would threat every word out of the addict's mouth, every
thought in the addict's mind and the addict's every action as symtoms
of the problem. This discourse would assert that the addict does not
want what he thinks he wants, is not doing what he thinks he is doing
and does not know what he thinks he knows on the basis of his own
experience.
To gain "insight" into his addiction, the addict must accept that
he is not who he thinks himself to be but who he is described as being
in the writings of policemen and doctors who are fit to speak the
truth of addiction precisely because they are not addicted but rather
sane, healthy and good. This is commentary. It presents the reality
and meaning of the junky's life as a deep secret which the junky can
only come to know by ceasing to be what she is.
This is why I can't take Habermas seriously. I just can't imagine
Herr Doktor, even under ideal speech conditions, having a mutually
satisfying conversation with a crack whore. What would they say to
each other? Confereing together, how would they decide society ought
to deal with the "problem of addiction."
Malcolm X once said that even though both most blacks and most
whites want to solve the "race problem" this really doesn't give us
much of anything because the "race problem" most whites really have
and want to see solved is not the "race problem" most blacks really
have and want to see solved. I think Habermas and the crack whore are
going to find the same about "addiction" I don't think any
meta-language, even a meta-language which allowed each to say
everything he or she wanted to say while being understood perfectly by
the other, will solve the problem even if such a language could be
developed, which i don't think it can.
There are people in this world who could not possibly be who they
think they are if I am who I think I am. I can't talk honestly about
"those people" without resorting to commentary. We are all in the same
boat even though "those people" for me might be "us" for you and "us "
for me might be "those people" for you. The important thing to notice
is that the need to see a "deeper meaning" beneath what someone else
lives as real is often rooted in an irresolvable clash between that
person's sense of what is real and your own. This makes commentary a
mechanism of defense, a form of denial where what is denied is the
radical alterity of the other. I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Tony Michael Roberts
---WIGMOOR FRANCIS <wwfrancs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At 05:10 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Tony Roberts wrote:
>
> >for example, kept the gentleman junkie from expresiing his need with
> >through and for language. In the fifties, the junkie was an invisible
> >man disappeared behind a (in exactly Foucaults' sense) commentary
> >about vice and virtue.
>
> Could you clarify for me the distinction (if any) between commentary
and
> discourse in Foucault?
>
> Regards
>
>
==
"I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order." Michel Foucault
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com