Hi Phillip,
Welcome out of the shadows. I am slightly puzzled by your mail - what
exactly is the question? I find Althusser almost intolerable to read - I
know others don't. But I do read him. I think Foucault is very critical of
Althusser, but I never disputed that there are links between them - though I
didn't say that there were either. The example from the Introduction to AK
is a good one, but it comes in the context of a general discussion of trends
in the history of ideas.
So when you say
>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)?
I find nothing essentially to disagree with. But I still lack a
question. Perhaps I can throw it back to you: what are the 'many views' of
Althusser that F accepts? Perhaps a detailed list would help us in the
broader question of Foucault's relationship to structural Marxism. Various
other people (including myself) can then critique, dispute, add to, etc.
this list.
Best wishes
Stuart
Welcome out of the shadows. I am slightly puzzled by your mail - what
exactly is the question? I find Althusser almost intolerable to read - I
know others don't. But I do read him. I think Foucault is very critical of
Althusser, but I never disputed that there are links between them - though I
didn't say that there were either. The example from the Introduction to AK
is a good one, but it comes in the context of a general discussion of trends
in the history of ideas.
So when you say
>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)?
I find nothing essentially to disagree with. But I still lack a
question. Perhaps I can throw it back to you: what are the 'many views' of
Althusser that F accepts? Perhaps a detailed list would help us in the
broader question of Foucault's relationship to structural Marxism. Various
other people (including myself) can then critique, dispute, add to, etc.
this list.
Best wishes
Stuart