Since we are discussing 'Intellectuals and Power'
I 'm wondering whether it might be interesting to also consider
Spivak's take on things since she provides a pretty damning critique
of Foucault and Deleuze on the idea of representing others, or what
she sees as the conflation of representation, as in politics, and
re-presentatio, as in art and philosophy. From memory she says
something like they slide from rendering visible the mechanism of
oppression to rendering vocal the oppressed. Any takes?
Also, since I've brought up Spivak, any thoughts on her suggestions
comments on her take on Foucault in MOre on Power/knowledge?
where, in reference to Foucault's notion of power, which she sees as
catachrestic, and Derrida critique of Foucault concerning his
history/archaeology of madness, she states:
"...I would discover in "madness" the catachrestic name given by
early Foucault to that ontic dimension of Being which eludes Reason's
ontology. I would suggest that, in Madness and Unreason, his first
"real" book, where Foucault takes, by his own well-known account, a
serious swerve away from the history of madness to the archaeology of
silence, the history and the philosophy. . .have not yet brought each
other into the crisis that this new politics of practice must
assiduously cultivate. . .he is himself at once using the
inaccessibility of madness (as "truth of Being") as a catachresis for
the ontic- perhaps through his on-the-job training with Heideggerian
existential analysis..."p.38
Outside in the Teaching Machine
Sorry for the big quote.
regards,
=============================================================
'My tongue- it is of the people: I speak too coarsely
and frankly for Angora rabbits. And yet stranger soundeth
my speech in the ears of all ink-fisk and pen-foxes.'
Friedrich W. Nietzsche- Thus Spake Zarathustra
Stephen Pritchard
PhD Candidate
Centre for Comparative Literature & Cultural Studies
Monash University
Melbourne
I 'm wondering whether it might be interesting to also consider
Spivak's take on things since she provides a pretty damning critique
of Foucault and Deleuze on the idea of representing others, or what
she sees as the conflation of representation, as in politics, and
re-presentatio, as in art and philosophy. From memory she says
something like they slide from rendering visible the mechanism of
oppression to rendering vocal the oppressed. Any takes?
Also, since I've brought up Spivak, any thoughts on her suggestions
comments on her take on Foucault in MOre on Power/knowledge?
where, in reference to Foucault's notion of power, which she sees as
catachrestic, and Derrida critique of Foucault concerning his
history/archaeology of madness, she states:
"...I would discover in "madness" the catachrestic name given by
early Foucault to that ontic dimension of Being which eludes Reason's
ontology. I would suggest that, in Madness and Unreason, his first
"real" book, where Foucault takes, by his own well-known account, a
serious swerve away from the history of madness to the archaeology of
silence, the history and the philosophy. . .have not yet brought each
other into the crisis that this new politics of practice must
assiduously cultivate. . .he is himself at once using the
inaccessibility of madness (as "truth of Being") as a catachresis for
the ontic- perhaps through his on-the-job training with Heideggerian
existential analysis..."p.38
Outside in the Teaching Machine
Sorry for the big quote.
regards,
=============================================================
'My tongue- it is of the people: I speak too coarsely
and frankly for Angora rabbits. And yet stranger soundeth
my speech in the ears of all ink-fisk and pen-foxes.'
Friedrich W. Nietzsche- Thus Spake Zarathustra
Stephen Pritchard
PhD Candidate
Centre for Comparative Literature & Cultural Studies
Monash University
Melbourne