--------------4428F37A521FCCE58CB31E35
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have decided to give up my status as a lurker, come out of the shadows, and
ask Stuart Elden a question. Elden wrote, "Althusser is interesting, but I find
him almost intolerable to read. I can't
help but think that Foucault's attacks on Marxism are almost always attacks
on _contemporary_ _French_ Marxism - Sartre and Althusser as key figures." No
doubt Foucault disagrees with Althusser on many points, yet Foucault,
ALthusser's student and colleague, also accepts many of Althusser's views. For
example, what about the introduction to Archaeology, where, to explain the
assumptions of discontinuous history, Foucault cites Althusser's For Marx,
especially his notion of epistemological break (derived from Canguilhem and
Bachelaard -- see p. 5, English translation)?
Philip Goldstein
Stuart Elden wrote:
> Joe
>
> Sounds interesting. I am intrigued by the claims that Foucault was a) a
> structuralist; b) a Marxist; c) a structural Marxist... Initially at least i
> would say he was none of these, but I am more than willing to enter into a
> constructive dialogue over the list on these issues. Perhaps you would
> elaborate - I'm sure you could.
>
> The Bachelard-Canguilhem line is worth pursuing, though I think that their
> shared heritage in Heidegger and Nietzsche is perhaps more interesting than
> any direct influence per se. Bear in mind that Cang only saw Folie et
> deraison at a very late stage, and that to my mind at least, almost all of
> Foucault's conceptual approach is evident in that text... only that later he
> more explicitly developed it as a approach/method.
>
> Althusser is interesting, but I find him almost intolerable to read. I can't
> help but think that Foucault's attacks on Marxism are almost always attacks
> on _contemporary_ _French_ Marxism - Sartre and Althusser as key figures.
> That said, there are considerable affinities with Lefebvre, and perhaps the
> Frankfurt school. But these are not structural readings...
>
> And as for discussing particular texts - all for it. I hope this can be in
> some depth. The list is certainly useful for helping each other with
> particular issues - references, what does this mean?, etc. (I've made use of
> the list for this, and hopefully helped out in return), but it shouldn't
> just be that. It should also be a forum for debate, discussion and
> Auseinandersetzung.
>
> Let me know what you have in mind.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Stuart
--------------4428F37A521FCCE58CB31E35
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I have decided to give up my status as a lurker, come out of the shadows,
and ask Stuart Elden a question. Elden wrote, "Althusser is interesting,
but I find him almost intolerable to read. I can't
<br>help but think that Foucault's attacks on Marxism are almost always
attacks
<br>on _contemporary_ _French_ Marxism - Sartre and Althusser as key figures."
No doubt Foucault disagrees with Althusser on many points, yet Foucault,
ALthusser's student and colleague, also accepts many of Althusser's views.
For example, what about the introduction to <u>Archaeology</u>, where,
to explain the assumptions of discontinuous history, Foucault cites Althusser's
<u>For Marx</u>, especially his notion of epistemological break (derived
from Canguilhem and Bachelaard -- see p. 5, English translation)?
<p>Philip Goldstein
<p>Stuart Elden wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joe
<p>Sounds interesting. I am intrigued by the claims that Foucault was a)
a
<br>structuralist; b) a Marxist; c) a structural Marxist... Initially at
least i
<br>would say he was none of these, but I am more than willing to enter
into a
<br>constructive dialogue over the list on these issues. Perhaps you would
<br>elaborate - I'm sure you could.
<p>The Bachelard-Canguilhem line is worth pursuing, though I think that
their
<br>shared heritage in Heidegger and Nietzsche is perhaps more interesting
than
<br>any direct influence per se. Bear in mind that Cang only saw Folie
et
<br>deraison at a very late stage, and that to my mind at least, almost
all of
<br>Foucault's conceptual approach is evident in that text... only that
later he
<br>more explicitly developed it as a approach/method.
<p>Althusser is interesting, but I find him almost intolerable to read.
I can't
<br>help but think that Foucault's attacks on Marxism are almost always
attacks
<br>on _contemporary_ _French_ Marxism - Sartre and Althusser as key figures.
<br>That said, there are considerable affinities with Lefebvre, and perhaps
the
<br>Frankfurt school. But these are not structural readings...
<p>And as for discussing particular texts - all for it. I hope this can
be in
<br>some depth. The list is certainly useful for helping each other with
<br>particular issues - references, what does this mean?, etc. (I've made
use of
<br>the list for this, and hopefully helped out in return), but it shouldn't
<br>just be that. It should also be a forum for debate, discussion and
<br>Auseinandersetzung.
<p>Let me know what you have in mind.
<p>Best wishes
<p>Stuart</blockquote>
</html>
--------------4428F37A521FCCE58CB31E35--