This student article said:
>Postmodernism however is a intellectual game. The works of Derrida,
>Foucault and Lacan will never breach class and be understood by those who
>are not doing a philosophy or cultural studies major at university. It is
>not because the rest are stupid but because it offers little to them and
>constitutes intellectual drivel.
I must admit that I never grouped Foucault under 'postmodernism'. Isn't
there a big difference between 'deconstruction' and the work of Foucault?
Whereas deconstructionists argue that what we take for granted is merely
historical and cultural constructions (which in my view doesn't make them
any less real), Foucault is more in to describing the constitution of truths.
Furthermore I don't agree that Foucaults work is reserved for an
intellectual elite. I would say that one of the reasons that so many are
reading Foucault is due to his style of writing. He could have been a great
novelist.
Anders Schmidt.
>Postmodernism however is a intellectual game. The works of Derrida,
>Foucault and Lacan will never breach class and be understood by those who
>are not doing a philosophy or cultural studies major at university. It is
>not because the rest are stupid but because it offers little to them and
>constitutes intellectual drivel.
I must admit that I never grouped Foucault under 'postmodernism'. Isn't
there a big difference between 'deconstruction' and the work of Foucault?
Whereas deconstructionists argue that what we take for granted is merely
historical and cultural constructions (which in my view doesn't make them
any less real), Foucault is more in to describing the constitution of truths.
Furthermore I don't agree that Foucaults work is reserved for an
intellectual elite. I would say that one of the reasons that so many are
reading Foucault is due to his style of writing. He could have been a great
novelist.
Anders Schmidt.