I have recently been trying to come to grips with the Foucault-Derrida
encounter, an encounter which it seems to me may be of import not only for a
critical understanding of Foucault's early writings but perhaps beyond to
Discipline and Punish, The Will to Knowledge and the eventual breakout of an
aesthetics of existence in the late phase. I have attempted a reading of the
1963 Derrida paper but found it difficult to follow and somewhat obscure
(perhaps a translation problem?).
As an addition to the question posed by John then, again if you (or anyone)
have the time or passion, how does the 'totalising' claim relate to
Derrida's charge regarding the impossibilities of Foucault's statement that
he sought to speak the language of madness itself (rather than the history
of its being silenced by a psychiatric discourse in some measure owing to an
event in Descartes' meditation on the cogito)? Is there something
approaching 'madness' in Foucault's claim here?
Also, how does this question of 'totalisation' relate to Foucault's
valorisation of a number of writers who go 'mad' (I am thinking here
principally of Raymond Roussel and his treatment in Foucault's Death and the
Labyrinth, written around the same time Histoire de la Folie first appeared,
but also the other writers who may fit into this conception of literary
production: Nietzsche, Artaud, Bataille, Blanchot), writers who push
literature to the point at which the work (of art) falters and the writer is
in some way effaced?
cheers
sebastian
>oh, but they have a wonderful history...
>
>derrida enthusiastically attended lectures given by foucault about madness
around the time that 'folie et deraison' appeared. but within a couple of
years, derrida delivered a lecture on foucault and madness in which he
criticized the 'totalizing' aspects of foucault's work on madness (and
foucault happened to be in the audience--doh!). the lectures were
eventually collected in derrida's 'writing and difference' under the chapter
"cogito and the history of madness." foucault reserved his indignance and
fury for nearly ten years but eventually published his scintillating reply
as "my body, this paper, this fire" in 1971. (you gotta love the title.)
i think that he wrote this piece right after hearing derrida and withheld it
from publication until later. most of the scintillating tidbits about their
conflict can be found in deidre eribon's biography of foucault (pages
119-21). foucault's response was included in the 1972 french edition of
'folie' and the english translation can be found in volume 2 of "the
essential works of foucault," the new press. finally, derrida most recently
revisited this conflict with foucault in 1991 and this essay "'to do justice
to freud': the history of madness in the age of psychoanalysis" can be found
in "foucault and his interlocutors," arnold davidson, ed, university of
chicago press.
>
>for the most part derrida is always complimentary of his former teacher. i
don't think that foucault thought much of derrida as he often contrasted his
methods from deconstruction in interviews. perhaps, foucault's "what is an
author?" can be read in contrast to deconstruction. and maybe one could
also contrast foucault's insistence on anonymity (as in the interview "the
masked philosopher" where he conducted an interview anonymously) with
derrida today as a celebrity icon in american literary circles. certainly,
one can argue that derrida has become that "universal intellectual" that
foucault so despised in sartre. and we should also note that foucault
always refused the labels of "postmodernism" and "poststructuralism."
>
>
>hope this helps,
>
>tom.
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
><META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=#fffff0>
><DIV>oh, but they have a wonderful history...</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>derrida enthusiastically attended lectures given by foucault about
madness
>around the time that 'folie et deraison' appeared. but within a
couple of
>years, derrida delivered a lecture on foucault and madness in which he
>criticized the 'totalizing' aspects of foucault's work on madness (and
foucault
>happened to be in the audience--doh!). the lectures were eventually
>collected in derrida's 'writing and difference' under the chapter "cogito and
>the history of madness." foucault reserved his indignance and fury for
>nearly ten years but eventually published his scintillating reply as "my
>body, this paper, this fire" in 1971. (you gotta love the
title.) i
>think that he wrote this piece right after hearing derrida and withheld it
from
>publication until later. most of the scintillating tidbits about their
>conflict can be found in deidre eribon's biography of foucault (pages
>119-21). foucault's response was included in the 1972 french edition of
>'folie' and the english translation can be found in volume 2 of "the essential
>works of foucault," the new press. finally, derrida most recently
>revisited this conflict with foucault in 1991 and this essay "'to do
justice to
>freud': the history of madness in the age of psychoanalysis" can be found in
>"foucault and his interlocutors," arnold davidson, ed, university of chicago
>press. </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>for the most part derrida is always complimentary of his former
>teacher. i don't think that foucault thought much of derrida as he often
>contrasted his methods from deconstruction in interviews. perhaps,
>foucault's "what is an author?" can be read in contrast to
deconstruction.
>and maybe one could also contrast foucault's insistence on anonymity (as in
the
>interview "the masked philosopher" where he conducted an interview
anonymously)
>with derrida today as a celebrity icon in american literary circles.
>certainly, one can argue that derrida has become that "universal intellectual"
>that foucault so despised in sartre. and we should also note that
foucault
>always refused the labels of "postmodernism" and "poststructuralism."</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>hope this helps,</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>tom.</DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
encounter, an encounter which it seems to me may be of import not only for a
critical understanding of Foucault's early writings but perhaps beyond to
Discipline and Punish, The Will to Knowledge and the eventual breakout of an
aesthetics of existence in the late phase. I have attempted a reading of the
1963 Derrida paper but found it difficult to follow and somewhat obscure
(perhaps a translation problem?).
As an addition to the question posed by John then, again if you (or anyone)
have the time or passion, how does the 'totalising' claim relate to
Derrida's charge regarding the impossibilities of Foucault's statement that
he sought to speak the language of madness itself (rather than the history
of its being silenced by a psychiatric discourse in some measure owing to an
event in Descartes' meditation on the cogito)? Is there something
approaching 'madness' in Foucault's claim here?
Also, how does this question of 'totalisation' relate to Foucault's
valorisation of a number of writers who go 'mad' (I am thinking here
principally of Raymond Roussel and his treatment in Foucault's Death and the
Labyrinth, written around the same time Histoire de la Folie first appeared,
but also the other writers who may fit into this conception of literary
production: Nietzsche, Artaud, Bataille, Blanchot), writers who push
literature to the point at which the work (of art) falters and the writer is
in some way effaced?
cheers
sebastian
>oh, but they have a wonderful history...
>
>derrida enthusiastically attended lectures given by foucault about madness
around the time that 'folie et deraison' appeared. but within a couple of
years, derrida delivered a lecture on foucault and madness in which he
criticized the 'totalizing' aspects of foucault's work on madness (and
foucault happened to be in the audience--doh!). the lectures were
eventually collected in derrida's 'writing and difference' under the chapter
"cogito and the history of madness." foucault reserved his indignance and
fury for nearly ten years but eventually published his scintillating reply
as "my body, this paper, this fire" in 1971. (you gotta love the title.)
i think that he wrote this piece right after hearing derrida and withheld it
from publication until later. most of the scintillating tidbits about their
conflict can be found in deidre eribon's biography of foucault (pages
119-21). foucault's response was included in the 1972 french edition of
'folie' and the english translation can be found in volume 2 of "the
essential works of foucault," the new press. finally, derrida most recently
revisited this conflict with foucault in 1991 and this essay "'to do justice
to freud': the history of madness in the age of psychoanalysis" can be found
in "foucault and his interlocutors," arnold davidson, ed, university of
chicago press.
>
>for the most part derrida is always complimentary of his former teacher. i
don't think that foucault thought much of derrida as he often contrasted his
methods from deconstruction in interviews. perhaps, foucault's "what is an
author?" can be read in contrast to deconstruction. and maybe one could
also contrast foucault's insistence on anonymity (as in the interview "the
masked philosopher" where he conducted an interview anonymously) with
derrida today as a celebrity icon in american literary circles. certainly,
one can argue that derrida has become that "universal intellectual" that
foucault so despised in sartre. and we should also note that foucault
always refused the labels of "postmodernism" and "poststructuralism."
>
>
>hope this helps,
>
>tom.
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
><META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=#fffff0>
><DIV>oh, but they have a wonderful history...</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>derrida enthusiastically attended lectures given by foucault about
madness
>around the time that 'folie et deraison' appeared. but within a
couple of
>years, derrida delivered a lecture on foucault and madness in which he
>criticized the 'totalizing' aspects of foucault's work on madness (and
foucault
>happened to be in the audience--doh!). the lectures were eventually
>collected in derrida's 'writing and difference' under the chapter "cogito and
>the history of madness." foucault reserved his indignance and fury for
>nearly ten years but eventually published his scintillating reply as "my
>body, this paper, this fire" in 1971. (you gotta love the
title.) i
>think that he wrote this piece right after hearing derrida and withheld it
from
>publication until later. most of the scintillating tidbits about their
>conflict can be found in deidre eribon's biography of foucault (pages
>119-21). foucault's response was included in the 1972 french edition of
>'folie' and the english translation can be found in volume 2 of "the essential
>works of foucault," the new press. finally, derrida most recently
>revisited this conflict with foucault in 1991 and this essay "'to do
justice to
>freud': the history of madness in the age of psychoanalysis" can be found in
>"foucault and his interlocutors," arnold davidson, ed, university of chicago
>press. </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>for the most part derrida is always complimentary of his former
>teacher. i don't think that foucault thought much of derrida as he often
>contrasted his methods from deconstruction in interviews. perhaps,
>foucault's "what is an author?" can be read in contrast to
deconstruction.
>and maybe one could also contrast foucault's insistence on anonymity (as in
the
>interview "the masked philosopher" where he conducted an interview
anonymously)
>with derrida today as a celebrity icon in american literary circles.
>certainly, one can argue that derrida has become that "universal intellectual"
>that foucault so despised in sartre. and we should also note that
foucault
>always refused the labels of "postmodernism" and "poststructuralism."</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>hope this helps,</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>tom.</DIV></BODY></HTML>
>