This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01BF0218.898D4230
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It might be worth showing caution about entering into this discussion on the
unexamined nominative, 'Althusser's student.' Sets things in an odd light.
PAB
Paul Anthony Bove
Professor of English
Editor,
boundary 2
Department of English
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
412 - 624 - 6523
fax: 412 - 624 - 6639
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
Goldstein
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 3:22 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Structural Marxism
Stuart,
Thanks for encouraging a dialog on the question of Foucault's
relationship to Althusser. I am sorry that I did not clarify my question. I
meant to ask you about the ties or similarities of Althusser and Foucault
because you said that Foucault is sharply critical of Althusser. To pursue
this line of questioning about these similarities, let me know what you
think of these overlaps or connections.
In Althusser's later work (after Reading Capital) he argues that during a
discourse's historical evolution it develops a continuing opposition between
its later scientific or disciplinary forms and its early prescientific
forms. In this way economics, history, philosophy, mathematics, and other
disciplines and discourses establish their own "problematics," with their
"inward" criteria of validity and their own legitimate objects and distinct
"knowledge-effects." This revised account of the science/ideology opposition
describes the diverse epistemologies or "problematic" of a discourse's
established methods or schools. Although Althusser's student and colleague
Michel Foucault repudiates the science/ideology opposition and describes a
discourse's historical divisions and changes, Althusser's revised account of
a discourse's institutional reproduction approximates Foucault's accounts of
a discourse's effects of power and knowledge. In both Althusser and
Foucault, institutional power ensures the reproduction and development of
forms of knowledge. That's why both have been condemned as functionalist.
Moreover, Althusser and Foucault both assume that ideology or discourse
imposes conformity but resists ruling class purposes, and they both reject
humanist notions of universal truth.
How about those similarities?
Philip Goldstein
Stuart Elden wrote:
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
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01BF0218.898D4230
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=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D986295700-19091999>It might be worth showing caution =
about=20
entering into this discussion on the unexamined nominative, 'Althusser's =
student.' Sets things in an odd light.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D986295700-19091999></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D986295700-19091999> =
PAB</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Paul Anthony Bove<BR>Professor of =
English<BR>Editor,<BR>boundary=20
2<BR>Department of English<BR>University of Pittsburgh<BR>Pittsburgh, =
PA =20
15260<BR>412 - 624 - 6523<BR>fax: 412 - 624 - 6639</FONT> </P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT size=3D2>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<B>On Behalf Of</B> =
Philip=20
Goldstein<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 18, 1999 3:22 =
PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Structural=20
Marxism<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Stuart,=20
<P> Thanks for encouraging a dialog on the question =
of=20
Foucault's relationship to Althusser. I am sorry that I did not =
clarify my=20
question. I meant to ask you about the ties or similarities of =
Althusser and=20
Foucault because you said that Foucault is sharply critical of =
Althusser. To=20
pursue this line of questioning about these similarities, let me know =
what you=20
think of these overlaps or connections.=20
<P>In Althusser's later work (after <U>Reading Capital</U>) he argues =
that=20
during a discourse's historical evolution it develops a continuing =
opposition=20
between its later scientific or disciplinary forms and its early =
prescientific=20
forms. In this way economics, history, philosophy, mathematics, and =
other=20
disciplines and discourses establish their own "problematics," with =
their=20
"inward" criteria of validity and their own legitimate objects and =
distinct=20
"knowledge-effects." This revised account of the science/ideology =
opposition=20
describes the diverse epistemologies or "problematic" of a discourse's =
established methods or schools. Although Althusser's student and =
colleague=20
Michel Foucault repudiates the science/ideology opposition and =
describes a=20
discourse's historical divisions and changes, Althusser's revised =
account of a=20
discourse's institutional reproduction approximates Foucault's =
accounts of a=20
discourse's effects of power and knowledge. In both Althusser and =
Foucault,=20
institutional power ensures the reproduction and development of forms =
of=20
knowledge. That's why both have been condemned as functionalist. =
Moreover,=20
Althusser and Foucault both assume that ideology or discourse imposes=20
conformity but resists ruling class purposes, and they both reject =
humanist=20
notions of universal truth. <BR>How about those similarities?=20
<P>Philip Goldstein <BR>Stuart Elden wrote:=20
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE">Hi Phillip,=20
<P>Welcome out of the shadows. I am slightly puzzled by your mail - =
what=20
<BR>exactly is the question? I find Althusser almost intolerable to =
read - I=20
<BR>know others don't. But I do read him. I think Foucault is very =
critical=20
of <BR>Althusser, but I never disputed that there are links between =
them -=20
though I <BR>didn't say that there were either. The example from the =
Introduction to AK <BR>is a good one, but it comes in the context of =
a=20
general discussion of trends <BR>in the history of ideas.=20
<P>So when you say <BR> >No doubt Foucault =
disagrees=20
with Althusser on many points, yet <BR>>Foucault, ALthusser's =
student and=20
colleague, also accepts many of <BR>>Althusser's views. For =
example, what=20
about the introduction to <BR>>Archaeology, where, to explain the =
assumptions of discontinuous >history, <BR>Foucault cites =
Althusser's For=20
Marx, especially his notion of <BR>>epistemological break =
(derived from=20
Canguilhem and Bachelaard -- >see p. 5, <BR>English translation)? =
<BR> I find nothing essentially to disagree with. =
But I=20
still lack a <BR>question. Perhaps I can throw it back to you: what =
are the=20
'many views' of <BR>Althusser that F accepts? Perhaps a detailed =
list would=20
help us in the <BR>broader question of Foucault's relationship to =
structural=20
Marxism. Various <BR>other people (including myself) can then =
critique,=20
dispute, add to, etc. <BR>this list.=20
<P> Best wishes=20
<P> =
Stuart</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01BF0218.898D4230--
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01BF0218.898D4230
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It might be worth showing caution about entering into this discussion on the
unexamined nominative, 'Althusser's student.' Sets things in an odd light.
PAB
Paul Anthony Bove
Professor of English
Editor,
boundary 2
Department of English
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
412 - 624 - 6523
fax: 412 - 624 - 6639
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
Goldstein
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 3:22 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Structural Marxism
Stuart,
Thanks for encouraging a dialog on the question of Foucault's
relationship to Althusser. I am sorry that I did not clarify my question. I
meant to ask you about the ties or similarities of Althusser and Foucault
because you said that Foucault is sharply critical of Althusser. To pursue
this line of questioning about these similarities, let me know what you
think of these overlaps or connections.
In Althusser's later work (after Reading Capital) he argues that during a
discourse's historical evolution it develops a continuing opposition between
its later scientific or disciplinary forms and its early prescientific
forms. In this way economics, history, philosophy, mathematics, and other
disciplines and discourses establish their own "problematics," with their
"inward" criteria of validity and their own legitimate objects and distinct
"knowledge-effects." This revised account of the science/ideology opposition
describes the diverse epistemologies or "problematic" of a discourse's
established methods or schools. Although Althusser's student and colleague
Michel Foucault repudiates the science/ideology opposition and describes a
discourse's historical divisions and changes, Althusser's revised account of
a discourse's institutional reproduction approximates Foucault's accounts of
a discourse's effects of power and knowledge. In both Althusser and
Foucault, institutional power ensures the reproduction and development of
forms of knowledge. That's why both have been condemned as functionalist.
Moreover, Althusser and Foucault both assume that ideology or discourse
imposes conformity but resists ruling class purposes, and they both reject
humanist notions of universal truth.
How about those similarities?
Philip Goldstein
Stuart Elden wrote:
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
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01BF0218.898D4230
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=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D986295700-19091999>It might be worth showing caution =
about=20
entering into this discussion on the unexamined nominative, 'Althusser's =
student.' Sets things in an odd light.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D986295700-19091999></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D986295700-19091999> =
PAB</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Paul Anthony Bove<BR>Professor of =
English<BR>Editor,<BR>boundary=20
2<BR>Department of English<BR>University of Pittsburgh<BR>Pittsburgh, =
PA =20
15260<BR>412 - 624 - 6523<BR>fax: 412 - 624 - 6639</FONT> </P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT size=3D2>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<B>On Behalf Of</B> =
Philip=20
Goldstein<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 18, 1999 3:22 =
PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Structural=20
Marxism<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Stuart,=20
<P> Thanks for encouraging a dialog on the question =
of=20
Foucault's relationship to Althusser. I am sorry that I did not =
clarify my=20
question. I meant to ask you about the ties or similarities of =
Althusser and=20
Foucault because you said that Foucault is sharply critical of =
Althusser. To=20
pursue this line of questioning about these similarities, let me know =
what you=20
think of these overlaps or connections.=20
<P>In Althusser's later work (after <U>Reading Capital</U>) he argues =
that=20
during a discourse's historical evolution it develops a continuing =
opposition=20
between its later scientific or disciplinary forms and its early =
prescientific=20
forms. In this way economics, history, philosophy, mathematics, and =
other=20
disciplines and discourses establish their own "problematics," with =
their=20
"inward" criteria of validity and their own legitimate objects and =
distinct=20
"knowledge-effects." This revised account of the science/ideology =
opposition=20
describes the diverse epistemologies or "problematic" of a discourse's =
established methods or schools. Although Althusser's student and =
colleague=20
Michel Foucault repudiates the science/ideology opposition and =
describes a=20
discourse's historical divisions and changes, Althusser's revised =
account of a=20
discourse's institutional reproduction approximates Foucault's =
accounts of a=20
discourse's effects of power and knowledge. In both Althusser and =
Foucault,=20
institutional power ensures the reproduction and development of forms =
of=20
knowledge. That's why both have been condemned as functionalist. =
Moreover,=20
Althusser and Foucault both assume that ideology or discourse imposes=20
conformity but resists ruling class purposes, and they both reject =
humanist=20
notions of universal truth. <BR>How about those similarities?=20
<P>Philip Goldstein <BR>Stuart Elden wrote:=20
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE">Hi Phillip,=20
<P>Welcome out of the shadows. I am slightly puzzled by your mail - =
what=20
<BR>exactly is the question? I find Althusser almost intolerable to =
read - I=20
<BR>know others don't. But I do read him. I think Foucault is very =
critical=20
of <BR>Althusser, but I never disputed that there are links between =
them -=20
though I <BR>didn't say that there were either. The example from the =
Introduction to AK <BR>is a good one, but it comes in the context of =
a=20
general discussion of trends <BR>in the history of ideas.=20
<P>So when you say <BR> >No doubt Foucault =
disagrees=20
with Althusser on many points, yet <BR>>Foucault, ALthusser's =
student and=20
colleague, also accepts many of <BR>>Althusser's views. For =
example, what=20
about the introduction to <BR>>Archaeology, where, to explain the =
assumptions of discontinuous >history, <BR>Foucault cites =
Althusser's For=20
Marx, especially his notion of <BR>>epistemological break =
(derived from=20
Canguilhem and Bachelaard -- >see p. 5, <BR>English translation)? =
<BR> I find nothing essentially to disagree with. =
But I=20
still lack a <BR>question. Perhaps I can throw it back to you: what =
are the=20
'many views' of <BR>Althusser that F accepts? Perhaps a detailed =
list would=20
help us in the <BR>broader question of Foucault's relationship to =
structural=20
Marxism. Various <BR>other people (including myself) can then =
critique,=20
dispute, add to, etc. <BR>this list.=20
<P> Best wishes=20
<P> =
Stuart</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01BF0218.898D4230--