Some Foucault on Iran:
<italic>modernization, as a political project and as principle of social
trransformatio, is a thing of the past in Iran </italic>( ( Corriere dela
Sera 10/1/78)
<italic>Of the entire kemelist program, international politics and
internal forces only left the Pahl;avis with one bone to gnaw on:
modernaization. And here this modernization has come profoundly
rejected.</italic> ( idem)
<italic>today in Iran, the modernization [that was] to be in Iran, is
dead in its tracks</italic> (idem)
Wasn't he saying that Islamic Iran can not be subjected to the ordinary
process of history: the modernization?
<italic>Khomeini became a mythical figure, an "anti-Shah" </italic> :
yes, and all his analysis of that mov. is dualistic as is this statement:
the war is between the shah and khomeyni and " <italic>a whole
nation</italic>" is behind Kh.!!?? this is taking the form for the
content! Beside how totalizing!
and according to F. ,what the modernization was incapable of doing "la
<bold>spiritualite <italic>musulmane</italic></bold>" was supposed to
achieve in Iran!
"A quoi revent les Iranians?" shows very well how F. takes this
"spiritualite musulmane" as its ESSENTIAL force, since in that text,
all is reduced to Islam! Islam become the reason for the defeat of
modernization and the reason for revolution!
and how about taking Islamic laws for " <italic>formulas based on
bourgeois, revolutionary democracy" </italic>( N. Observateur:
10/16/78)?
And a more important question: where does Foucault describe women's
participation in the mov.? ( isn't this also the case in "L'histoire
de la sexualite"?)
on sept 28 1978: C. dela S: " <italic>Now what struck me in Iran is
that there is no struggle between different elements. What gives it such
a beauty, and at the same time such a gravity, is that there is only one
confrontation: ... on one side the entire will of the people , on the
other side, the machine gun."
</italic>whatever happened to the theory of " le pluralisme des centres
de pouvoir ?" and that of the resistance?
why not face it?he s... oin this one and the question is<bold><bigger>
WHY?
</bigger></bold>
ao.
<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic></bold>
<italic>modernization, as a political project and as principle of social
trransformatio, is a thing of the past in Iran </italic>( ( Corriere dela
Sera 10/1/78)
<italic>Of the entire kemelist program, international politics and
internal forces only left the Pahl;avis with one bone to gnaw on:
modernaization. And here this modernization has come profoundly
rejected.</italic> ( idem)
<italic>today in Iran, the modernization [that was] to be in Iran, is
dead in its tracks</italic> (idem)
Wasn't he saying that Islamic Iran can not be subjected to the ordinary
process of history: the modernization?
<italic>Khomeini became a mythical figure, an "anti-Shah" </italic> :
yes, and all his analysis of that mov. is dualistic as is this statement:
the war is between the shah and khomeyni and " <italic>a whole
nation</italic>" is behind Kh.!!?? this is taking the form for the
content! Beside how totalizing!
and according to F. ,what the modernization was incapable of doing "la
<bold>spiritualite <italic>musulmane</italic></bold>" was supposed to
achieve in Iran!
"A quoi revent les Iranians?" shows very well how F. takes this
"spiritualite musulmane" as its ESSENTIAL force, since in that text,
all is reduced to Islam! Islam become the reason for the defeat of
modernization and the reason for revolution!
and how about taking Islamic laws for " <italic>formulas based on
bourgeois, revolutionary democracy" </italic>( N. Observateur:
10/16/78)?
And a more important question: where does Foucault describe women's
participation in the mov.? ( isn't this also the case in "L'histoire
de la sexualite"?)
on sept 28 1978: C. dela S: " <italic>Now what struck me in Iran is
that there is no struggle between different elements. What gives it such
a beauty, and at the same time such a gravity, is that there is only one
confrontation: ... on one side the entire will of the people , on the
other side, the machine gun."
</italic>whatever happened to the theory of " le pluralisme des centres
de pouvoir ?" and that of the resistance?
why not face it?he s... oin this one and the question is<bold><bigger>
WHY?
</bigger></bold>
ao.
<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic></bold>