Stuart,
I suppose my last comments on Nietzsche and Heidegger were inflammatory, but I'm
just trying to overturn the standard labelling of Foucualt as a neo-Nietzschean;
I do agree that F's "ethical" writings (from the late 70s-early 80s) show a
Nietzschean concern with the self as project and so on. I too have taught
courses on Nietzsche, and I am convinced that he is principally interested in an
ethics of individuality and "casting off" social forms including reason,
language, and 'herd morality'; I agree that he is critical and political too -
but I tend to agree with some of the critical rationalists (i.e. Habermas, Dews,
Hobsbawm, etc.) as being on the right track in thinking that a Nietzschean
politics center on the problematization of the individual, and thus has become a
conservative ideological form. Foucault does not place a barrier or opposition
between the individual and society -- both are molded from the same SOCIAL
fabric in most of F's books (discourse, discursive practices, truth regimes,
etc.)
For what it's worth, Althusser's essay "Marxism and Humanism" was written in
1952 I believe. As Foucault's repetiteur for the agregation at the ENS, one
can't help but think that Althusser discussed his ideas concenring how to read
Marx well before that.
I agree that name calling and citing "influences" is an endless, fruitless
endeavor -- but we jhave to look at such to develop a language in order to think
through F's work.
Perhaps we could just start with a basic question: If indeed interpretation (of
anything) is endless, why is one interpretation more valuable than another? Why
even bother (assuming we're actually interested in the work we do, and not just
making careers)?
I suppose my last comments on Nietzsche and Heidegger were inflammatory, but I'm
just trying to overturn the standard labelling of Foucualt as a neo-Nietzschean;
I do agree that F's "ethical" writings (from the late 70s-early 80s) show a
Nietzschean concern with the self as project and so on. I too have taught
courses on Nietzsche, and I am convinced that he is principally interested in an
ethics of individuality and "casting off" social forms including reason,
language, and 'herd morality'; I agree that he is critical and political too -
but I tend to agree with some of the critical rationalists (i.e. Habermas, Dews,
Hobsbawm, etc.) as being on the right track in thinking that a Nietzschean
politics center on the problematization of the individual, and thus has become a
conservative ideological form. Foucault does not place a barrier or opposition
between the individual and society -- both are molded from the same SOCIAL
fabric in most of F's books (discourse, discursive practices, truth regimes,
etc.)
For what it's worth, Althusser's essay "Marxism and Humanism" was written in
1952 I believe. As Foucault's repetiteur for the agregation at the ENS, one
can't help but think that Althusser discussed his ideas concenring how to read
Marx well before that.
I agree that name calling and citing "influences" is an endless, fruitless
endeavor -- but we jhave to look at such to develop a language in order to think
through F's work.
Perhaps we could just start with a basic question: If indeed interpretation (of
anything) is endless, why is one interpretation more valuable than another? Why
even bother (assuming we're actually interested in the work we do, and not just
making careers)?