kjkhoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
> given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
> addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
> addressed and others not?
If so, then this list has nothing to do with Foucault. One of the major
criticisms of his writings I find valid is that he concentrates
on microstudies of power that cannot be put into some larger, consistent
context. As such it becomes almost impossible to get a general
idea of his operating parameters. If we are going to ask this question
of NATO, then perhaps we should ask it of Foucault, seeing as how
this IS a Foucault listserv....
> And, I may be wrong, isn't that Chomsky's point, both specifically
> and generally? A point that he has repeated ad nauseam over the
> years, because it won't go away, and because it seems so difficult to
> get across?
No, I don't think so. Chomsky's main point in his political writings
becomes
irrelevant if it is. Like cursing the sun for not coming up at the same
time
everywhere. Lasting, productive, nonviolent change tends to be gradual,
not immediate.
---
Christopher W. Chase
-----------------------------------------------
ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
(480) 965-7145
christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
-----------------------------------------------
> I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
> given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
> addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
> addressed and others not?
If so, then this list has nothing to do with Foucault. One of the major
criticisms of his writings I find valid is that he concentrates
on microstudies of power that cannot be put into some larger, consistent
context. As such it becomes almost impossible to get a general
idea of his operating parameters. If we are going to ask this question
of NATO, then perhaps we should ask it of Foucault, seeing as how
this IS a Foucault listserv....
> And, I may be wrong, isn't that Chomsky's point, both specifically
> and generally? A point that he has repeated ad nauseam over the
> years, because it won't go away, and because it seems so difficult to
> get across?
No, I don't think so. Chomsky's main point in his political writings
becomes
irrelevant if it is. Like cursing the sun for not coming up at the same
time
everywhere. Lasting, productive, nonviolent change tends to be gradual,
not immediate.
---
Christopher W. Chase
-----------------------------------------------
ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
(480) 965-7145
christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
-----------------------------------------------