> This is nothing more than a typical semantic and bourgouis way of
> approaching the issue. Again, let's talk about it. Let's theorise.
You are scarey!
If you mean by this that a request that you further explain your
terms or clarify position is 'typically semantic and bourgouis' in so
far as it defers or repositions the debate (if it can be called that)
into the realm of theory - then on what basis should one act or
resist without enacting such a repositioning? Are you advocating
'unthinking' uncritical dogma here or facism? I certainly think one
must also question the way in which relations of power are
constituted and reproduced by such moves for debate and dialogue-
this is essential- but surely you can see that resistance to 'talk',
'dialogue' and 'theory' so often manifests itself in the interests of
conservativism and the status quo- 'no questions, not critique- that
would be too "bourgouis"!' What a strange socialist you are- (if that
is in fact what you are).
> Let's
> define and set parameters. Resistance is not vaild if it is not rational.
> This means that nobody outside of the established grouping of the educatesd
> cannot critique it because they are just not smart enough. But, sorry, they
> are.
Surely this is an interesting and important point of intervention-
not the moment where 'critique' and debate are shut down.
If certain lines of critical thinking are held to serve the interests
of the 'ruling class' or the status quo then surely the obvious move
would be an engagement with it on those terms rather than a flat out
refusal. It seems that you underestimate and misread what you attack
and indeed inscribe the 'theory'/'practice' opposition in terms of
class rather than problematize and engage with it. Can't there be
counter-hegemonic theory which doesn't necessarily privilege theory
over practice? I think that many could argue that this is indeed a
lesson that can be draw from Deleuze, Foucault and Lyotard, in fact
it seems to be their point of departure (forgive me for naming my
'high priests' again- how "bourgouis").
Secondly, maybe you missed the point in the article about the
> heterogeneity of postmodernism and exactly why that makes it commodious to
> liberalism.
>
> PS. I find it interesting that many of you find the need to
> monitor/review/critique your own opinions by rewriting them with footnotes
> and the names of high-priests.
If the tone and 'naming' irritates you why are you subcribed to a
Foucault discussion list? Does it offend your God? (who I fear is
Stalin and not Marx)
kind regards,
Stephen
> =============================================================
Stephen Pritchard
PhD Candidate
Centre for Comparative Literature & Cultural Studies
Monash University
Melbourne