This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF041B.539BA2C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Phillip,
=20
As I mention in the mail in reply to John - I'm very busy with a move, =
so apologies for the delay and the shortness of this response.=20
What you say about Althusser is interesting, and I'm sure I should =
re-read some of his later work (I guess you particularly have in mind =
the Lenin and Philosophy collection here) with Foucault more in mind. I =
think that given Foucault's work in Les mots et les choses and =
Archaeology of Knowledge, there is certainly some kind of cross-over =
between their work on discourse, ideology and science. This may well be =
not just one way - Althusser makes much of Foucault's work in the =
autobiography. I also second Paul Bove's doubts about the 'Althusser's =
student' phrase. In any case Althusser's problematic sounds very similar =
to Canguilhem in this presentation, and of course Foucault knew his work =
by this time. As I think we've discussed before on the list, Kuhn is not =
a million miles away either.
You highlight at least one potential area of difference - the =
repudiation of a science/ideology difference in Foucault's work. I think =
this is central - from my recollection much of Althusser's work revolves =
around this: his whole reading of Marx for one. You then say:-
=20
>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.
=20
Well, it may approximate it, but how helpful is this? I wonder if there =
are sufficient differences - the two-way working of knowledge-power =
relations in Foucault (which may cause problems for Althusser); the fact =
that power relations are diffused throughout society, which i think =
might well be a critique of Althusser and ISAs (Discipline and Punish =
can, i think, be read as a critique of Marxist critiques of state power, =
effectively stating that the problems can equally be found in what some =
would call 'civil society'. I know Foucault rejects this distinction, =
but i think that's part of the point) - in order for this not to be =
terribly productive in terms of comparison.
>Moreover, Althusser and Foucault both assume that ideology or discourse =
>imposes conformity but resists ruling class purposes,
=20
That sounds like structuralism in a way - death of the subject (even the =
collective subject of a class), constraint by the structures of society. =
Foucault might have subscribed to that in some places - I'm not sure it =
characterises all of his work.=20
>and they both reject humanist notions of universal truth.=20
>How about those similarities?
=20
Okay - but this is surely not to say that Althusser influences on this =
point? Nietzsche, Heidegger, there are many others whose anti-humanism =
was a spur to Foucault. Heidegger's Letter on Humanism is central to =
post-war French thought - Derrida and Althusser both say so, Foucault =
certainly acts as if it was. The key here i think is the explicit =
critique of Sartre. Althusser is clearly seeking to reclaim Marxism from =
existentialist (or ex-existentialist) readings - the emphasis on the =
later scientific works, rather than, say the 1844 manuscripts which =
Sartre et al had used, etc.
=20
In brief, well, there are certainly affinities, and perhaps i should =
have toned down my earlier mail, but I think that there are sufficient =
differences to make us very sceptical of the links between the two. =
Althusser may have been a teacher of Foucault for a while, but then =
Foucault was of Derrida... and we know how the student likes to eclipse =
the master. Given the fact that they knew each other, and that their =
publishing careers were somewhat parallel, there was certainly an =
exchange of ideas. It wasn't one way, and from what i have read, i would =
say Foucault was more critical of Althusser than the other way round.
=20
Sorry I can't add more, and that this is lacking proper sourcing. This =
is far from a final word: more than happy to continue the dialogue.
=20
Best wishes
Stuart
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF041B.539BA2C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!doctype html =
public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3007.2"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial>Phillip,</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>As I mention in the mail in reply to John - I'm very busy with a =
move, so=20
apologies for the delay and the shortness of this response. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What you say about Althusser is interesting, and I'm sure I should =
re-read=20
some of his later work (I guess you particularly have in mind the Lenin =
and=20
Philosophy collection here) with Foucault more in mind. I think that =
given=20
Foucault's work in Les mots et les choses and Archaeology of Knowledge, =
there is=20
certainly some kind of cross-over between their work on discourse, =
ideology and=20
science. This may well be not just one way - Althusser makes much of =
Foucault's=20
work in the autobiography. I also second Paul Bove's doubts about the=20
'Althusser's student' phrase. In any case Althusser's problematic sounds =
very=20
similar to Canguilhem in this presentation, and of course Foucault knew =
his work=20
by this time. As I think we've discussed before on the list, Kuhn is not =
a=20
million miles away either.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You highlight at least one potential area of difference - the =
repudiation=20
of a science/ideology difference in Foucault's work. I think this is =
central -=20
from my recollection much of Althusser's work revolves around this: his =
whole=20
reading of Marx for one. You then say:-</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>>Althusser's revised account of a =
discourse's=20
institutional reproduction >approximates Foucault's accounts of a =
discourse's=20
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=20
functionalist.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, it may approximate it, but how helpful is this? I wonder if =
there are=20
sufficient differences - the two-way working of knowledge-power =
relations in=20
Foucault (which may cause problems for Althusser); the fact that power =
relations=20
are diffused throughout society, which i think might well be a critique =
of=20
Althusser and ISAs (Discipline and Punish can, i think, be read as a =
critique of=20
Marxist critiques of state power, effectively stating that the problems =
can=20
equally be found in what some would call 'civil society'. I know =
Foucault=20
rejects this distinction, but i think that's part of the point) - in =
order for=20
this not to be terribly productive in terms of comparison.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>>Moreover, Althusser and Foucault =
both assume=20
that ideology or discourse >imposes conformity but resists ruling =
class=20
purposes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>That sounds like structuralism in a way - death of the subject =
(even the=20
collective subject of a class), constraint by the structures of society. =
Foucault might have subscribed to that in some places - I'm not sure it=20
characterises all of his work. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>>and they both reject humanist =
notions of=20
universal truth. </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3><BR>>How about =
those=20
similarities?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>Okay - but this is surely not to say =
that Althusser=20
influences on this point? Nietzsche, Heidegger, there are many others =
whose=20
anti-humanism was a spur to Foucault. Heidegger's Letter on Humanism is =
central=20
to post-war French thought - Derrida and Althusser both say so, Foucault =
certainly acts as if it was. The key here i think is the explicit =
critique of=20
Sartre. Althusser is clearly seeking to reclaim Marxism from =
existentialist (or=20
ex-existentialist) readings - the emphasis on the later scientific =
works, rather=20
than, say the 1844 manuscripts which Sartre et al had used, =
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>In brief, well, there are certainly =
affinities, and=20
perhaps i should have toned down my earlier mail, but I think that there =
are=20
sufficient differences to make us very sceptical of the links between =
the two.=20
Althusser may have been a teacher of Foucault for a while, but then =
</FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D3>Foucault was of Derrida... and we know how the =
student likes=20
to eclipse the master. Given the fact that they knew each other, and =
that their=20
publishing careers were somewhat parallel, there was certainly an =
exchange of=20
ideas. It wasn't one way, and from what i have read, i would say =
Foucault was=20
more critical of Althusser than the other way round.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>Sorry I can't add more, and that this =
is lacking=20
proper sourcing. This is far from a final word: more than happy to =
continue the=20
dialogue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Stuart</DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF041B.539BA2C0--
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF041B.539BA2C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Phillip,
=20
As I mention in the mail in reply to John - I'm very busy with a move, =
so apologies for the delay and the shortness of this response.=20
What you say about Althusser is interesting, and I'm sure I should =
re-read some of his later work (I guess you particularly have in mind =
the Lenin and Philosophy collection here) with Foucault more in mind. I =
think that given Foucault's work in Les mots et les choses and =
Archaeology of Knowledge, there is certainly some kind of cross-over =
between their work on discourse, ideology and science. This may well be =
not just one way - Althusser makes much of Foucault's work in the =
autobiography. I also second Paul Bove's doubts about the 'Althusser's =
student' phrase. In any case Althusser's problematic sounds very similar =
to Canguilhem in this presentation, and of course Foucault knew his work =
by this time. As I think we've discussed before on the list, Kuhn is not =
a million miles away either.
You highlight at least one potential area of difference - the =
repudiation of a science/ideology difference in Foucault's work. I think =
this is central - from my recollection much of Althusser's work revolves =
around this: his whole reading of Marx for one. You then say:-
=20
>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.
=20
Well, it may approximate it, but how helpful is this? I wonder if there =
are sufficient differences - the two-way working of knowledge-power =
relations in Foucault (which may cause problems for Althusser); the fact =
that power relations are diffused throughout society, which i think =
might well be a critique of Althusser and ISAs (Discipline and Punish =
can, i think, be read as a critique of Marxist critiques of state power, =
effectively stating that the problems can equally be found in what some =
would call 'civil society'. I know Foucault rejects this distinction, =
but i think that's part of the point) - in order for this not to be =
terribly productive in terms of comparison.
>Moreover, Althusser and Foucault both assume that ideology or discourse =
>imposes conformity but resists ruling class purposes,
=20
That sounds like structuralism in a way - death of the subject (even the =
collective subject of a class), constraint by the structures of society. =
Foucault might have subscribed to that in some places - I'm not sure it =
characterises all of his work.=20
>and they both reject humanist notions of universal truth.=20
>How about those similarities?
=20
Okay - but this is surely not to say that Althusser influences on this =
point? Nietzsche, Heidegger, there are many others whose anti-humanism =
was a spur to Foucault. Heidegger's Letter on Humanism is central to =
post-war French thought - Derrida and Althusser both say so, Foucault =
certainly acts as if it was. The key here i think is the explicit =
critique of Sartre. Althusser is clearly seeking to reclaim Marxism from =
existentialist (or ex-existentialist) readings - the emphasis on the =
later scientific works, rather than, say the 1844 manuscripts which =
Sartre et al had used, etc.
=20
In brief, well, there are certainly affinities, and perhaps i should =
have toned down my earlier mail, but I think that there are sufficient =
differences to make us very sceptical of the links between the two. =
Althusser may have been a teacher of Foucault for a while, but then =
Foucault was of Derrida... and we know how the student likes to eclipse =
the master. Given the fact that they knew each other, and that their =
publishing careers were somewhat parallel, there was certainly an =
exchange of ideas. It wasn't one way, and from what i have read, i would =
say Foucault was more critical of Althusser than the other way round.
=20
Sorry I can't add more, and that this is lacking proper sourcing. This =
is far from a final word: more than happy to continue the dialogue.
=20
Best wishes
Stuart
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF041B.539BA2C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!doctype html =
public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3007.2"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial>Phillip,</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>As I mention in the mail in reply to John - I'm very busy with a =
move, so=20
apologies for the delay and the shortness of this response. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What you say about Althusser is interesting, and I'm sure I should =
re-read=20
some of his later work (I guess you particularly have in mind the Lenin =
and=20
Philosophy collection here) with Foucault more in mind. I think that =
given=20
Foucault's work in Les mots et les choses and Archaeology of Knowledge, =
there is=20
certainly some kind of cross-over between their work on discourse, =
ideology and=20
science. This may well be not just one way - Althusser makes much of =
Foucault's=20
work in the autobiography. I also second Paul Bove's doubts about the=20
'Althusser's student' phrase. In any case Althusser's problematic sounds =
very=20
similar to Canguilhem in this presentation, and of course Foucault knew =
his work=20
by this time. As I think we've discussed before on the list, Kuhn is not =
a=20
million miles away either.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You highlight at least one potential area of difference - the =
repudiation=20
of a science/ideology difference in Foucault's work. I think this is =
central -=20
from my recollection much of Althusser's work revolves around this: his =
whole=20
reading of Marx for one. You then say:-</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>>Althusser's revised account of a =
discourse's=20
institutional reproduction >approximates Foucault's accounts of a =
discourse's=20
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=20
functionalist.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, it may approximate it, but how helpful is this? I wonder if =
there are=20
sufficient differences - the two-way working of knowledge-power =
relations in=20
Foucault (which may cause problems for Althusser); the fact that power =
relations=20
are diffused throughout society, which i think might well be a critique =
of=20
Althusser and ISAs (Discipline and Punish can, i think, be read as a =
critique of=20
Marxist critiques of state power, effectively stating that the problems =
can=20
equally be found in what some would call 'civil society'. I know =
Foucault=20
rejects this distinction, but i think that's part of the point) - in =
order for=20
this not to be terribly productive in terms of comparison.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>>Moreover, Althusser and Foucault =
both assume=20
that ideology or discourse >imposes conformity but resists ruling =
class=20
purposes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>That sounds like structuralism in a way - death of the subject =
(even the=20
collective subject of a class), constraint by the structures of society. =
Foucault might have subscribed to that in some places - I'm not sure it=20
characterises all of his work. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>>and they both reject humanist =
notions of=20
universal truth. </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3><BR>>How about =
those=20
similarities?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>Okay - but this is surely not to say =
that Althusser=20
influences on this point? Nietzsche, Heidegger, there are many others =
whose=20
anti-humanism was a spur to Foucault. Heidegger's Letter on Humanism is =
central=20
to post-war French thought - Derrida and Althusser both say so, Foucault =
certainly acts as if it was. The key here i think is the explicit =
critique of=20
Sartre. Althusser is clearly seeking to reclaim Marxism from =
existentialist (or=20
ex-existentialist) readings - the emphasis on the later scientific =
works, rather=20
than, say the 1844 manuscripts which Sartre et al had used, =
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>In brief, well, there are certainly =
affinities, and=20
perhaps i should have toned down my earlier mail, but I think that there =
are=20
sufficient differences to make us very sceptical of the links between =
the two.=20
Althusser may have been a teacher of Foucault for a while, but then =
</FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D3>Foucault was of Derrida... and we know how the =
student likes=20
to eclipse the master. Given the fact that they knew each other, and =
that their=20
publishing careers were somewhat parallel, there was certainly an =
exchange of=20
ideas. It wasn't one way, and from what i have read, i would say =
Foucault was=20
more critical of Althusser than the other way round.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>Sorry I can't add more, and that this =
is lacking=20
proper sourcing. This is far from a final word: more than happy to =
continue the=20
dialogue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Stuart</DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF041B.539BA2C0--