Stuart,
Sorry I did not reply sooner -- too busy.
When I wrote that Althusser and Foucault both critique humanist
notions of universal truth, you replied as follows:
"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."
This comment, along with the issue about calling Foucault Althusser's
student, raises a methodological issue concerning the legitimacy of
appropriating Foucault's work for a perspective or a standpoint, rather
than a totalizing account. If we read Foucault's work from a Marxist
standpoint, we may not want to say that Heidegger's letter was so
important. We may want to situate Foucault's work within the development
of Marxist accounts of civil society, ideology, or hegemony. A
totalizing approach, even a totalizing Marxist approach, would exclude
such claims on the grounds that they are reductive or neglect matters
which are more important for the whole picture.
What do you think about that distinction?
Philip Goldstein
Sorry I did not reply sooner -- too busy.
When I wrote that Althusser and Foucault both critique humanist
notions of universal truth, you replied as follows:
"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."
This comment, along with the issue about calling Foucault Althusser's
student, raises a methodological issue concerning the legitimacy of
appropriating Foucault's work for a perspective or a standpoint, rather
than a totalizing account. If we read Foucault's work from a Marxist
standpoint, we may not want to say that Heidegger's letter was so
important. We may want to situate Foucault's work within the development
of Marxist accounts of civil society, ideology, or hegemony. A
totalizing approach, even a totalizing Marxist approach, would exclude
such claims on the grounds that they are reductive or neglect matters
which are more important for the whole picture.
What do you think about that distinction?
Philip Goldstein