There's more to it than simply taking Foucault to task
for "committing the structuralist error of placing
reason and unreason in opposition to one another".
Far from being a simple matter of opposition, Derrida
is calling Foucault into question for presuming to be
able to speak of an authentic or true experience of
madness. If Foucault is in some sense claiming that
identities such as madness are discursive formations
molded from a field of forces, then the evocation of a
true or authentic madness can only represent one more
rationalization of madness in a series of other
rationalizations. In other words, Foucault, according
to Derrida, falls prey to precisely the same fallacy
that he accuses psychology of... He thinks that he
can speak madness or point to it. Foucault, despite
protestations, seems ultimately to agree with this
critique as can be seen in the huge transformations
his project undergoes in OT, AK, and DP... All of
which can be seen as attempts to escape the need of
referring to some sort of authentic phenomenology in
order to properly critique the human sciences.
Paul Bryant
Department of Philosophy
Loyola University of Chicago
--- Brian Milstein <madmenonly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> i would like to say, first of all, that this
> response is purely opinion and
> was written impromptu.
>
> it has been a while since i read derrida's lecture
> or mad/civ, but, as i
> remember it, derrida's fault (as i saw it) lied in
> the way he tried to
> "force" an interpretation of foucault's history that
> portrayed foucault as
> pitting madness (unreason) and civilization (reason)
> in pure opposition to
> one another. in other words, derrida is accusing
> foucault of the "original
> sin" of structuralist critique, i.e., of claiming
> that historical discourses
> develop primarily through the (totalizing)
> dichotomies of mutually defining
> opposites. according to derrida, foucault takes the
> side of "unreason" and,
> on that sole basis, rejects the side of "reason"
> out-of-hand. the
> credibility of derrida's interpretation becomes all
> the more dubious once we
> realize that it is based on only three pages out of
> foucault's 673-page work
> (it should be noted in passing that the three pages
> in question do not
> appear in the shortened english translation).
>
> what foucault (i think) is actually talking about is
> a "silence" is a far
> more complex situation in which madness is relegated
> WITHIN society (not so
> much in opposition) such that its significance in
> the development of
> civilization is denied through a discourse of
> rationality tied to a practice
> of confinement. to elaborate more on this would
> require a closer examination
> of the text on my part. but i think his invocation
> of nietzsche, bataille,
> etc. in a small way shows the persistence of that
> which is nominally
> dismissed as "madness."
>
> brian
>
>
> >From: Sebastian Gurciullo
> <sebtempo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: foucault/derrida
> >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:01:57 +1000
> >
> >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
>
>
______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
for "committing the structuralist error of placing
reason and unreason in opposition to one another".
Far from being a simple matter of opposition, Derrida
is calling Foucault into question for presuming to be
able to speak of an authentic or true experience of
madness. If Foucault is in some sense claiming that
identities such as madness are discursive formations
molded from a field of forces, then the evocation of a
true or authentic madness can only represent one more
rationalization of madness in a series of other
rationalizations. In other words, Foucault, according
to Derrida, falls prey to precisely the same fallacy
that he accuses psychology of... He thinks that he
can speak madness or point to it. Foucault, despite
protestations, seems ultimately to agree with this
critique as can be seen in the huge transformations
his project undergoes in OT, AK, and DP... All of
which can be seen as attempts to escape the need of
referring to some sort of authentic phenomenology in
order to properly critique the human sciences.
Paul Bryant
Department of Philosophy
Loyola University of Chicago
--- Brian Milstein <madmenonly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> i would like to say, first of all, that this
> response is purely opinion and
> was written impromptu.
>
> it has been a while since i read derrida's lecture
> or mad/civ, but, as i
> remember it, derrida's fault (as i saw it) lied in
> the way he tried to
> "force" an interpretation of foucault's history that
> portrayed foucault as
> pitting madness (unreason) and civilization (reason)
> in pure opposition to
> one another. in other words, derrida is accusing
> foucault of the "original
> sin" of structuralist critique, i.e., of claiming
> that historical discourses
> develop primarily through the (totalizing)
> dichotomies of mutually defining
> opposites. according to derrida, foucault takes the
> side of "unreason" and,
> on that sole basis, rejects the side of "reason"
> out-of-hand. the
> credibility of derrida's interpretation becomes all
> the more dubious once we
> realize that it is based on only three pages out of
> foucault's 673-page work
> (it should be noted in passing that the three pages
> in question do not
> appear in the shortened english translation).
>
> what foucault (i think) is actually talking about is
> a "silence" is a far
> more complex situation in which madness is relegated
> WITHIN society (not so
> much in opposition) such that its significance in
> the development of
> civilization is denied through a discourse of
> rationality tied to a practice
> of confinement. to elaborate more on this would
> require a closer examination
> of the text on my part. but i think his invocation
> of nietzsche, bataille,
> etc. in a small way shows the persistence of that
> which is nominally
> dismissed as "madness."
>
> brian
>
>
> >From: Sebastian Gurciullo
> <sebtempo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: foucault/derrida
> >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:01:57 +1000
> >
> >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
>
>
______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com