Re: Foucault and Iran

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BEA24E.07C43300
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

But surely it's not the case that some notion of 'direction' is needed =
to justify or comprehend resistance. Critic, as he says, is itself a =
virtue and can be cultivated separate from the utopian visions that have =
been mistakenly associated with it up until now.

-- John

----- Original Message -----=20
From: aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and Iran

Rather, the process of resistance itself must look forward=20
which direction is this forward for Foucualt? does he believe in ant =
direction at all?
>Unfortunately, all three of these reasons, and especially the =
third,>ceased to be true within weeks of the Shah's fall.
and what was khomeyni, if not politician? so this reason was out to =
begin with.=20

he was saying nothing I except a >"no" to the shah;
this is not true either! he was saying all according to islam. he was =
saying republic islamic.

I would frame the lesson as follows:
this is your lesson. did he ever concluded anything? his debate with =
Le Matin never took place although he promised it!? and he refused to =
speak to any Iranian after the revolution regarding his position on the =
mov.!!!??? he excused himself: "Pour l'instant, je suis occupe avec la =
question polonaise"=20

and to bring all these to the present situation in Kosovo, I would say =
that Fouault would back KLA and he would be "embarasse" to back up NATO, =
although by his logic, NATO is resisting the Serbian ...... as he did =
feel "embarasse" to back Khomeyni, but he never ever changed his =
position in Iran.=20
Have you read his reply to Mme Atoussa?=20

I am afraid that foucladien social theory ( if such think existed) is =
not capable to deal with mass mov. can not explain the phenomenon of =
leadership except in vague terms . Some Blanchot style literature yes, =
but analysis? no!=20

At 02:04 PM 5/19/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 1999 Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 May 1999 aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> what was to be admired about Khomeyni?
>>
>>I don't know. You have the text, I don't; what else does he say? But
>>perhaps a certain steadfastness against "the tide of history", a
>>willingness to make a "rupture in history", as Foucault says in "Is =
it
>>Useless to Revolt?" Not, for the most part, a good one, as it turns
>>out--hence not to be *supported*, but perhaps still to be *admired*.
>>
>>> Beside it is not just Khomeyni, he believed that Islam will =
establish
>>> democratic institution in the society!
>>
>>Really? Does he say that? For that matter, was there never a moment
>>when
>>the Islamic revolutionaries *could have* established democratic
>>institutions? Did Puritan revolutionaries not help to establish
>>democratic institutions in the UK? (And if those institutions had
>>failed
>>to take root, would we not now scoff at the idea that they ever =
could
>>have?)
>
>Matthew King raises some interesting questions, which sent me back to
>the text. A few notes:
>
>In 1978 and '79, as many of you know, Foucault engaged in a series of
>"reportages" in Iran for the Italian newspaper Corriere della sera,
>which examined the Iranian revolution as it developed. In sum, he =
wrote
>9 articles for Corriere della sera, as well as four major pieces that
>appeared in various French publications and a few brief responses to
>critics. (All of these, of course, are available in Dits et Ecrits, =
vol.
>3; only two have been translated into English: "Iran: the spirit of a
>world without spirit" L. Kritzman, ed., _Politics, philosophy, =
culture_
>(Routledge, 1988), pp. 211-224, and "Is it useless to revolt?"
>_Philosophy and social criticism_ 8:1 (Spring 1981), pp. 1-9. By the
>way, I think that these pieces would make for a very interesting =
small
>volume of translations, if they aren't included in the third volume =
of
>the so-called _Essential Foucault_.)=20
>
>Francois Ewald, Foucault's research assistant at the College de =
France,
>notes that MF's interest in Iran illustrates his interest in the =
history
>of the present, of "actualiti". (Ewald makes this point in "Foucault
>and the contemporary scene" in the latest issue of _Philosophy and
>social criticism_ 25:3 (May 1999), pp. 81-91, cf. p. 86.) Foucault =
says
>as much himself in the 8th of his installments for Corriere della =
sera,
>"I don't know how to do the history of the future. And I'm clumsy at
>foreseeing the past. Nevertheless, I would like to try to grasp *what
>is happening now* (ce qui est en train de passer), because in our day
>nothing is set in stone and the dice are still rolling." (DE 3:714) =
So
>he looked to Iran, where "what is happening now" was happening.
>
>What he found was paradoxical: a "perfectly unified collective will"
>that rejects the Shah's regime, but the absence of any person, party, =
or
>ideology who was capable of taking the leadership of this popular =
will.
>(The situation seems to me remarkably similar to the state of affairs =
in
>East Germany in the summer and fall of 1989, before the Wall was =
opened
>in November. The opening of the Wall shattered the unity of the =
popular
>will and enabled Kohl to step in and assume the position of leader.)
>Foucault found this popular will disconcerting, precisely because it
>focused on the depart of the shah, without any vision of what kind of
>regime would follow. And so, according to Foucault's analysis, =
Khomeini
>became a mythical figure, an "anti-Shah" if you will, and became the
>focal point of this popular will. He was able to take on this =
mythical,
>focusing role, on Foucault's analysis, for 3 reasons: (1) he was not
>there -- he was living in exile in France for 15 years and wouldn't
>return until the Shah had left; (2) he was saying nothing -- except a
>"no" to the shah; and (3) he was not a politician, so "there won't be =
a
>Khomeini party, there won't be a Khomeini government". (all of this =
from
>DE 3:715-716)
>
>(By the way, this article was titled "The mythical leader of the =
Iranian
>revolt", but Foucault had originally proposed the title "The madness =
of
>Iran".)
>
>Unfortunately, all three of these reasons, and especially the third,
>ceased to be true within weeks of the Shah's fall. I think Foucault =
was
>right to find the situation that led to the mythification of Khomeini
>"disconcerting" as its subsequent consequences made clear and I
>hope that we can extract a lesson from this for any Foucauldian =
ethical
>or political analysis. I would frame the lesson as follows:
>"Transgression" of or "resistance" to a state of domination is not in
>and of itself sufficient. Rather, the process of resistance itself =
must
>look forward and try to imagine possibilities that can be achieved, =
so
>that the resistance can be aimed toward some goal or improvement =
(even
>if this goal, too, is imperfect, dangerous), lest it discover after =
the
>fact that the resistance has only created a vacuum filled by a =
greater
>evil than the one resisted.
>
>To bring all this back to our current ongoing discussion of Kosovo, I
>would say only that it seems to me that NATO needs to be sure to heed
>this lesson.
>
>Richard
>
>Richard A. Lynch=20
>Dept. of Philosophy
>Boston College
>Chestnut HIll, MA 02467 USA
>lynchrb@xxxxxx
>
>
The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal utopia in the =
"present". No need for further move!

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BEA24E.07C43300
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>But surely it's =
not the case=20
that some notion of 'direction' is needed to justify or comprehend =
resistance.=20
Critic, as he says, is itself a virtue and can be cultivated separate =
from the=20
utopian visions that have been mistakenly associated with it up until=20
now.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- =
John</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black">From:=20
<A href=3D"mailto:aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
title=3Daoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">To: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
=
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[email protected]=
ia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 =
12:16=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: Re: Foucault and =
Iran</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>Rather, the process of resistance itself must look =
forward=20
 which direction is this forward for Foucualt? does he believe =
in ant=20
direction at all? >Unfortunately, all three of these reasons, =
and=20
especially the third,>ceased to be true within weeks of the Shah's=20
fall. and what was khomeyni, if not politician? so this reason =
was out=20
to begin with. he was saying nothing I except a >"no" to =
the=20
shah; this is not true either! he was saying all according to =
islam. he=20
was saying republic islamic. I would frame the =
lesson=20
as follows: this is your lesson. did he ever concluded =
anything?=20
his debate with Le Matin never took place although he =
promised=20
it!? and he refused to speak to any Iranian after the revolution =
regarding his=20
position on the mov.!!!??? he excused himself: "Pour l'instant, je =
suis occupe=20
avec la question polonaise" and to bring all these to the =
present=20
situation in Kosovo, I would say that Fouault would back KLA and he =
would be=20
"embarasse" to back up NATO, although by his logic, NATO is resisting =
the=20
Serbian ...... as he did feel "embarasse" to back Khomeyni, but he =
never ever=20
changed his position in Iran. Have you read his reply to Mme =
Atoussa?=20
 I am afraid that foucladien social theory ( if such think =
existed) is=20
not capable to deal with mass mov. can not explain the phenomenon of=20
leadership except in vague terms . Some Blanchot style literature yes, =
but=20
analysis? no! At 02:04 PM 5/19/1999 -0400, you =

wrote: >On Tue, 18 May 1999 Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx> =

wrote: >>On Tue, 18 May 1999 aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
wrote: >> >>> what was to be admired about=20
Khomeyni? >> >>I don't know. You have the text, I =
don't;=20
what else does he say? But >>perhaps a certain steadfastness =
against=20
"the tide of history", a >>willingness to make a "rupture in=20
history", as Foucault says in "Is it >>Useless to Revolt?" =
Not, for=20
the most part, a good one, as it turns >>out--hence not to be =

*supported*, but perhaps still to be =
*admired*. >> >>>=20
Beside it is not just Khomeyni, he believed that Islam will=20
establish >>> democratic institution in the=20
society! >> >>Really? Does he say that? For that =
matter, was=20
there never a moment >>when >>the Islamic =
revolutionaries=20
*could have* established democratic >>institutions? Did =
Puritan=20
revolutionaries not help to establish >>democratic =
institutions in=20
the UK? (And if those institutions had >>failed >>to =
take=20
root, would we not now scoff at the idea that they ever=20
could >>have?) > >Matthew King raises some =
interesting=20
questions, which sent me back to >the text. A few=20
notes: > >In 1978 and '79, as many of you know, Foucault =
engaged=20
in a series of >"reportages" in Iran for the Italian newspaper =
Corriere=20
della sera, >which examined the Iranian revolution as it =
developed. In=20
sum, he wrote >9 articles for Corriere della sera, as well as =
four major=20
pieces that >appeared in various French publications and a few =
brief=20
responses to >critics. (All of these, of course, are available =
in Dits=20
et Ecrits, vol. >3; only two have been translated into English: =
"Iran:=20
the spirit of a >world without spirit" L. Kritzman, ed., =
_Politics,=20
philosophy, culture_ >(Routledge, 1988), pp. 211-224, and "Is it =
useless=20
to revolt?" >_Philosophy and social criticism_ 8:1 (Spring =
1981), pp.=20
1-9. By the >way, I think that these pieces would make for a =
very=20
interesting small >volume of translations, if they aren't =
included in=20
the third volume of >the so-called _Essential Foucault_.)=20
 > >Francois Ewald, Foucault's research assistant at the =
College=20
de France, >notes that MF's interest in Iran illustrates his =
interest in=20
the history >of the present, of "actualiti". (Ewald makes this =
point in=20
"Foucault >and the contemporary scene" in the latest issue of=20
_Philosophy and >social criticism_ 25:3 (May 1999), pp. 81-91, =
cf. p.=20
86.) Foucault says >as much himself in the 8th of his =
installments for=20
Corriere della sera, >"I don't know how to do the history of the =
future.=20
And I'm clumsy at >foreseeing the past. Nevertheless, I would =
like to=20
try to grasp *what >is happening now* (ce qui est en train de =
passer),=20
because in our day >nothing is set in stone and the dice are =
still=20
rolling." (DE 3:714) So >he looked to Iran, where "what is =
happening=20
now" was happening. > >What he found was paradoxical: a =
"perfectly=20
unified collective will" >that rejects the Shah's regime, but =
the=20
absence of any person, party, or >ideology who was capable of =
taking the=20
leadership of this popular will. >(The situation seems to me =
remarkably=20
similar to the state of affairs in >East Germany in the summer =
and fall=20
of 1989, before the Wall was opened >in November. The opening of =
the=20
Wall shattered the unity of the popular >will and enabled Kohl =
to step=20
in and assume the position of leader.) >Foucault found this =
popular will=20
disconcerting, precisely because it >focused on the depart of =
the shah,=20
without any vision of what kind of >regime would follow. And so, =

according to Foucault's analysis, Khomeini >became a mythical =
figure, an=20
"anti-Shah" if you will, and became the >focal point of this =
popular=20
will. He was able to take on this mythical, >focusing role, on=20
Foucault's analysis, for 3 reasons: (1) he was not >there -- he =
was=20
living in exile in France for 15 years and wouldn't >return =
until the=20
Shah had left; (2) he was saying nothing -- except a >"no" to =
the shah;=20
and (3) he was not a politician, so "there won't be a >Khomeini =
party,=20
there won't be a Khomeini government". (all of this from >DE=20
3:715-716) > >(By the way, this article was titled "The =
mythical=20
leader of the Iranian >revolt", but Foucault had originally =
proposed the=20
title "The madness of >Iran".) > >Unfortunately, all =
three=20
of these reasons, and especially the third, >ceased to be true =
within=20
weeks of the Shah's fall. I think Foucault was >right to find =
the=20
situation that led to the mythification of =
Khomeini >"disconcerting" as=20
its subsequent consequences made clear and I >hope that we can =
extract a=20
lesson from this for any Foucauldian ethical >or political =
analysis. I=20
would frame the lesson as follows: >"Transgression" of or =
"resistance"=20
to a state of domination is not in >and of itself sufficient. =
Rather,=20
the process of resistance itself must >look forward and try to =
imagine=20
possibilities that can be achieved, so >that the resistance can =
be aimed=20
toward some goal or improvement (even >if this goal, too, is =
imperfect,=20
dangerous), lest it discover after the >fact that the resistance =
has=20
only created a vacuum filled by a greater >evil than the one=20
resisted. > >To bring all this back to our current ongoing =

discussion of Kosovo, I >would say only that it seems to me that =
NATO=20
needs to be sure to heed >this=20
lesson. > >Richard > >Richard A. Lynch =
 >Dept.=20
of Philosophy >Boston College >Chestnut HIll, MA 02467=20
USA >lynchrb@xxxxxx > > The foucaldien =
ethos has=20
already reached his/her eternal utopia in the "present". No need for =
further=20
move! </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BEA24E.07C43300--