Alive? yes, I was.
you mean it is not possible for a society like Iran to be modernized? and
why if i may ask? the problem was just the opposit! Shah couldn't keep
up with people's need to modernize ( if you wish) ie: creating space
for liberalism.
It is a mistake to think that THOSE societies ( the other?!) are not
capable of modernizing. may be the modernization will take different
form than what the west EXPECT to see ( and here is M.F.'s eurocentrism).
And again is taking the form for the content (which is not surprising
when you remember that aesthetics has the upper hand!!)
Kh. was able to gain the leadership because of a vacuum of
politicians/paty/political activity created by shah, and not because
people really wanted him ! For a year after the mov., there was no
mention of Kh.! his name appears in the demonstrations way after the
mov. had started.
what do you mean new metaphysical commitment?
At 11:22 PM 5/19/1999 +0200, you wrote:
>>>>
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Courier New</param><bigger>Were you alive
then? What Foucault says about the Iranian Revolution is *true*. It
actually was like that! Personally, I think the Iranian Revolution was
much more inspiring and dreamlike than the revolutions in Eastern Europe
ten years later. So don't mistake F's description of what was, in fact,
actually going on with some new metaphysical commitment of some kind.
</bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Courier New</param>-- John
</fontfamily><excerpt> ----- Original Message -----
<bold>From:</bold>
<<mailto:aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<bold>To:</bold>
<<mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<bold>Sent:</bold> Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:59 AM
<bold>Subject:</bold> some notes on Foucault and Iran
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>" 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> WHY?
<bold>
ao.
</bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic>
</excerpt>
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic></bold>
you mean it is not possible for a society like Iran to be modernized? and
why if i may ask? the problem was just the opposit! Shah couldn't keep
up with people's need to modernize ( if you wish) ie: creating space
for liberalism.
It is a mistake to think that THOSE societies ( the other?!) are not
capable of modernizing. may be the modernization will take different
form than what the west EXPECT to see ( and here is M.F.'s eurocentrism).
And again is taking the form for the content (which is not surprising
when you remember that aesthetics has the upper hand!!)
Kh. was able to gain the leadership because of a vacuum of
politicians/paty/political activity created by shah, and not because
people really wanted him ! For a year after the mov., there was no
mention of Kh.! his name appears in the demonstrations way after the
mov. had started.
what do you mean new metaphysical commitment?
At 11:22 PM 5/19/1999 +0200, you wrote:
>>>>
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Courier New</param><bigger>Were you alive
then? What Foucault says about the Iranian Revolution is *true*. It
actually was like that! Personally, I think the Iranian Revolution was
much more inspiring and dreamlike than the revolutions in Eastern Europe
ten years later. So don't mistake F's description of what was, in fact,
actually going on with some new metaphysical commitment of some kind.
</bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Courier New</param>-- John
</fontfamily><excerpt> ----- Original Message -----
<bold>From:</bold>
<<mailto:aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<bold>To:</bold>
<<mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<bold>Sent:</bold> Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:59 AM
<bold>Subject:</bold> some notes on Foucault and Iran
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>" 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> WHY?
<bold>
ao.
</bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic>
</excerpt>
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic></bold>