Heidegger, for example, shouldn't be readily
>comprehensible. He assumed a great deal of background knowledge in his
work:
>who can blame him. And when he is bastardised to suit the purposes of a
>wider audience I can't help but feel that something serious is missing.
You're quite right, although wouldn't you say that he made quite a nasty
habit of "bastardizing" himself--in rectoral addresses, student
newspapers, and the like?
Just asking.
MT
>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Feb 18 05:29:52 1999
>Received: from [128.143.200.198] by hotmail.com (1.1) with SMTP id
MHotMailB89560CCF1DBD1017077808FC8C609870; Thu Feb 18 05:29:52 1999
>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id HAA41637 for foucault-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999
07:42:56 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender
to owner-foucault@localhost using -f
>Received: from remus.clara.net (remus.clara.net [195.8.69.79]) by
lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA69792 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:42:48 -0500
>Received: from gtpgsre (du-029-0057.claranet.co.uk [195.8.87.57])
> by remus.clara.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA07175
> for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:37:52
GMT
> (envelope-from Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>Message-ID: <011501be5b3b$7552a0a0$d95708c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Stuart Elden" <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Bad Writing?
>Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:24:24 -0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3007.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3007.0
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Quentin,
>
>Thanks for this response. I think you're being entirely sensible here,
and I
>guess my response to the Bad Writing mail was perhaps overly polemical.
But
>it does make me annoyed. The implicit assumption of those who judge
this is
>that this thought SHOULD be readily understood. Clearly the proposer of
>Bhabha didn't know his Foucault: whose fault is that? Is it Bhabha's?
Did
>the reader of Butler understand Althusser, Gramsci and their critique?
>Should writers have to clarify everything they write about before
pushing
>forward? Why waste valuable words on something that many people will
fast
>forward through to get to the heart of the original thought? How many
people
>read Bhabha or Butler as an introduction? There are plenty of books
doing
>that purpose.
>
>But yes, I agree there is an 'occluded middle here'. I've spent a lot
of
>time working on Foucault and Heidegger particularly, and found the
going
>tough at the outset. Now it's still difficult, but the difficulty is of
>another level. I admit to being a bit of purist, and thinking that
there is
>no substitute for hard work.
>Similarly Foucault. Particularly on the issue of space (one of my key
>interests), there is a lot of simplifying material that does him no
service
>at all. It's a primary motive of my thesis to force people to realise
that
>using Foucault on space is NOT simple, that it must be attentive to the
>tensions in his work, his use of Heidegger etc.
>
>An American professor friend suggested that I should write a book that
>showed the Heideggerian roots of Foucault's thought, so that
Foucauldians
>'need not read any more Heidegger'. I'm not sure that's what I want to
do -
>though he is probably right that there is a market for such a book.
Rather,
>I would like to write a book that shows the Heideggerian roots of
Foucault's
>thought, so that Foucauldians want to go back to Heidegger for enriched
>understandings, and critical distance from my own take.
>
>But, that doesn't mean it needs to be willfully obscure. I hope that my
work
>is comprehensible to those prepared to make a little effort.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Stuart
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>comprehensible. He assumed a great deal of background knowledge in his
work:
>who can blame him. And when he is bastardised to suit the purposes of a
>wider audience I can't help but feel that something serious is missing.
You're quite right, although wouldn't you say that he made quite a nasty
habit of "bastardizing" himself--in rectoral addresses, student
newspapers, and the like?
Just asking.
MT
>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Feb 18 05:29:52 1999
>Received: from [128.143.200.198] by hotmail.com (1.1) with SMTP id
MHotMailB89560CCF1DBD1017077808FC8C609870; Thu Feb 18 05:29:52 1999
>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id HAA41637 for foucault-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999
07:42:56 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender
to owner-foucault@localhost using -f
>Received: from remus.clara.net (remus.clara.net [195.8.69.79]) by
lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA69792 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:42:48 -0500
>Received: from gtpgsre (du-029-0057.claranet.co.uk [195.8.87.57])
> by remus.clara.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA07175
> for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:37:52
GMT
> (envelope-from Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>Message-ID: <011501be5b3b$7552a0a0$d95708c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Stuart Elden" <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Bad Writing?
>Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:24:24 -0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3007.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3007.0
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Quentin,
>
>Thanks for this response. I think you're being entirely sensible here,
and I
>guess my response to the Bad Writing mail was perhaps overly polemical.
But
>it does make me annoyed. The implicit assumption of those who judge
this is
>that this thought SHOULD be readily understood. Clearly the proposer of
>Bhabha didn't know his Foucault: whose fault is that? Is it Bhabha's?
Did
>the reader of Butler understand Althusser, Gramsci and their critique?
>Should writers have to clarify everything they write about before
pushing
>forward? Why waste valuable words on something that many people will
fast
>forward through to get to the heart of the original thought? How many
people
>read Bhabha or Butler as an introduction? There are plenty of books
doing
>that purpose.
>
>But yes, I agree there is an 'occluded middle here'. I've spent a lot
of
>time working on Foucault and Heidegger particularly, and found the
going
>tough at the outset. Now it's still difficult, but the difficulty is of
>another level. I admit to being a bit of purist, and thinking that
there is
>no substitute for hard work.
>Similarly Foucault. Particularly on the issue of space (one of my key
>interests), there is a lot of simplifying material that does him no
service
>at all. It's a primary motive of my thesis to force people to realise
that
>using Foucault on space is NOT simple, that it must be attentive to the
>tensions in his work, his use of Heidegger etc.
>
>An American professor friend suggested that I should write a book that
>showed the Heideggerian roots of Foucault's thought, so that
Foucauldians
>'need not read any more Heidegger'. I'm not sure that's what I want to
do -
>though he is probably right that there is a market for such a book.
Rather,
>I would like to write a book that shows the Heideggerian roots of
Foucault's
>thought, so that Foucauldians want to go back to Heidegger for enriched
>understandings, and critical distance from my own take.
>
>But, that doesn't mean it needs to be willfully obscure. I hope that my
work
>is comprehensible to those prepared to make a little effort.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Stuart
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com