I share the sentiments mentioned below. Critical thought is in one
heck of a crisis. That's always been the great thing about Foucault
for me: that he is the first thinker who tries to think out of the box
of critical thought as normally conceived, tied as it is to
transcendence and the Revolution.
In *Dits et ecrits* there's this moment where a questioner asks
Foucault if there is any possibility of imaginging an
alternative to a police state, given the seemingly poor record of
accomplishments in the socialist world. Foucault responds in
this 1977 interview as follows:
The reponse to your question is sad, given the somber days in
which we live and that the succession of President Mao Tsetung
has been settled by arms. People have been shot or imprisoned,
machine guns have been put into action. Today, October 14, is a
day of which it can be said: Not since the Russian Revolution of
October 1917, maybe not even since the great European
revolutionary movements of 1848--that is to say, for the first
time in sixty years, or, if you like, 120 years--there is no
longer anywhere a single point from which the light of hope
shines. There is no longer an orientation. Not the Soviet Union,
certainly. Neither any longer the satellite countries. That too
is clear. Neither Cuba, nor the Palestenian revolution, and not
any longer in China, apparently. The same is true of Vietnam and
Cambodia. Confronting what has just happened in China, the left,
all this "way of thinking" of the European left, this European
revolutionary thought which had its points of reference
throughout the world and elaborated on them in a determined
manner--and thus a thought which oriented itself on things which
were situated outside of itself--this thought has lost its
historic reference points which it had found previously in other
parts of the world. It has lost its points of concrete support.
There no longer exists a single revolutionary movement and
certainly not a socialist country, in quotation marks,that we
can point to and say: "This is how it must be done! That's the
model! There's the line! That's a remarkable state of things!"
Anyway, 1830 had the French revolution and the whole European
tradition of the Enlightenment behind it. We must begin from
the beginning and ask ourselves, "Starting from what is it possible
to engage in a critique of our society in the situation, given
that the thing we have implicitly or explicitly relied upon
for support to make this critique, namely, the important
tradition of socialism, has been placed fundamentally in question,
for all that this socialist tradition has produced in history
is to be condemned."
[my translation from the French]
-- John
----- Original Message -----
From: Sebastian Gurciullo <sebtempo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: political commitment/intentionality
> I have not read Camus' Sisyphus myself, but whenever I have tried to
explain
> my understanding of Nietzsche's eternal return to a friend, he
immediately
> thinks of the Sisyphus myth (Camus's version I think). I don't know
anything
> about Camus' politics and how his rendition of the myth stands with
regard
> to them. While the problem of Eternal Return does point to some
difficulties
> in political commitment (at least for those who see in it a teaching
about
> intentions for change), I don't think it is possible to stop
thinking about
> politics or commitment to change simply because of this. This is
difficult
> territory. Whenever I ask some of my fellow scholars these days
about how
> they envisage their political commitment and what kind of change
they want
> to bring about through their work I tend to receive unsatisfactory
answers
> or simply annoyed or blank looks. It seems to me that a lot of
critical
> scholarship is perhaps being undertaken in a mode in which there is
no
> longer a credible or clear conception of why critical work needs to
take
> place, other than say in terms of piecemeal strategic changes and a
> determination not to be left out of a crucial debate. I sometimes
detect an
> unwillingness to reflect on the broader implications of what
criticism is
> all about, why it takes place, what its for, what can be reasonably
hoped
> for etc. Does anybody else share these sentiments?
>
> cheers
>
> sebastian
>
heck of a crisis. That's always been the great thing about Foucault
for me: that he is the first thinker who tries to think out of the box
of critical thought as normally conceived, tied as it is to
transcendence and the Revolution.
In *Dits et ecrits* there's this moment where a questioner asks
Foucault if there is any possibility of imaginging an
alternative to a police state, given the seemingly poor record of
accomplishments in the socialist world. Foucault responds in
this 1977 interview as follows:
The reponse to your question is sad, given the somber days in
which we live and that the succession of President Mao Tsetung
has been settled by arms. People have been shot or imprisoned,
machine guns have been put into action. Today, October 14, is a
day of which it can be said: Not since the Russian Revolution of
October 1917, maybe not even since the great European
revolutionary movements of 1848--that is to say, for the first
time in sixty years, or, if you like, 120 years--there is no
longer anywhere a single point from which the light of hope
shines. There is no longer an orientation. Not the Soviet Union,
certainly. Neither any longer the satellite countries. That too
is clear. Neither Cuba, nor the Palestenian revolution, and not
any longer in China, apparently. The same is true of Vietnam and
Cambodia. Confronting what has just happened in China, the left,
all this "way of thinking" of the European left, this European
revolutionary thought which had its points of reference
throughout the world and elaborated on them in a determined
manner--and thus a thought which oriented itself on things which
were situated outside of itself--this thought has lost its
historic reference points which it had found previously in other
parts of the world. It has lost its points of concrete support.
There no longer exists a single revolutionary movement and
certainly not a socialist country, in quotation marks,that we
can point to and say: "This is how it must be done! That's the
model! There's the line! That's a remarkable state of things!"
Anyway, 1830 had the French revolution and the whole European
tradition of the Enlightenment behind it. We must begin from
the beginning and ask ourselves, "Starting from what is it possible
to engage in a critique of our society in the situation, given
that the thing we have implicitly or explicitly relied upon
for support to make this critique, namely, the important
tradition of socialism, has been placed fundamentally in question,
for all that this socialist tradition has produced in history
is to be condemned."
[my translation from the French]
-- John
----- Original Message -----
From: Sebastian Gurciullo <sebtempo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: political commitment/intentionality
> I have not read Camus' Sisyphus myself, but whenever I have tried to
explain
> my understanding of Nietzsche's eternal return to a friend, he
immediately
> thinks of the Sisyphus myth (Camus's version I think). I don't know
anything
> about Camus' politics and how his rendition of the myth stands with
regard
> to them. While the problem of Eternal Return does point to some
difficulties
> in political commitment (at least for those who see in it a teaching
about
> intentions for change), I don't think it is possible to stop
thinking about
> politics or commitment to change simply because of this. This is
difficult
> territory. Whenever I ask some of my fellow scholars these days
about how
> they envisage their political commitment and what kind of change
they want
> to bring about through their work I tend to receive unsatisfactory
answers
> or simply annoyed or blank looks. It seems to me that a lot of
critical
> scholarship is perhaps being undertaken in a mode in which there is
no
> longer a credible or clear conception of why critical work needs to
take
> place, other than say in terms of piecemeal strategic changes and a
> determination not to be left out of a crucial debate. I sometimes
detect an
> unwillingness to reflect on the broader implications of what
criticism is
> all about, why it takes place, what its for, what can be reasonably
hoped
> for etc. Does anybody else share these sentiments?
>
> cheers
>
> sebastian
>