It is in the "Genealogy of Ethics" interview in the Rabinow reader. And you
miss the point if you thought I was proposing a solution. I said the quote
was apropos when the charge is raised that to be "postmodern" means you
can't launch political protests on grounds that such protests recreate the
very sort of grand narrative (i.e., universal morality?) that postmodernity
opposes.
Sorry if the reference to protesting what happened in Poland in the early
80's confused many of you, but considering this is the Foucault list, I
didn't think this was such a difficult point to grasp, nor the relation
between the point and the quote given.
Nathan
n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Klincewicz [SMTP:michal@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 4:33 PM
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Austria
>
> I wish I had the text with me right now so I could give you the exact
> quotation, but it goes something like this:
>
> We cannot look in problems of one people at a perticular time for
> solutions
> of the problems of today.
>
> Maybe someone could help me with this one. It is in the Foucault Reader
> Ed.
> by Paul Rabinow.
> -m
>
>
> Unfortunately for this thought of yours, postmodernity also means
> resistance to the closures inherent in a will to identity and purity. Not
> to invoke Foucault as an authority figure here, but the following is
> apropos.
>
> Let's take an example that touches us all, that of Poland. If we
> raise the question of Poland in strictly political terms, it's clear that
> we
> quickly reach the point of saying there's nothing we can do. We can't
> dispatch a team of paratroopers, and we can't send armored cars to
> liberate
> Warsaw. I think that, politically, we have to recognize this, but I think
> we also agree that, for ethical reasons, we have to raise the problem of
> Poland in the form of a nonacceptance of what is happening there, and a
> nonacceptance of the passivity of our own governments. I think this
> attitude is an ethical one, but it is also political; it does not consist
> in
> saying merely, "I protest," but in making of that attitude a political
> phenomenon that is as substantial as possible, and one which those who
> govern, here or there, will sooner or later be obliged to take into
> account.
> ("Politics and Ethics: An Interview").
>
> Nathan
> n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
>
> ______________________________________________
> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
>
miss the point if you thought I was proposing a solution. I said the quote
was apropos when the charge is raised that to be "postmodern" means you
can't launch political protests on grounds that such protests recreate the
very sort of grand narrative (i.e., universal morality?) that postmodernity
opposes.
Sorry if the reference to protesting what happened in Poland in the early
80's confused many of you, but considering this is the Foucault list, I
didn't think this was such a difficult point to grasp, nor the relation
between the point and the quote given.
Nathan
n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Klincewicz [SMTP:michal@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 4:33 PM
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Austria
>
> I wish I had the text with me right now so I could give you the exact
> quotation, but it goes something like this:
>
> We cannot look in problems of one people at a perticular time for
> solutions
> of the problems of today.
>
> Maybe someone could help me with this one. It is in the Foucault Reader
> Ed.
> by Paul Rabinow.
> -m
>
>
> Unfortunately for this thought of yours, postmodernity also means
> resistance to the closures inherent in a will to identity and purity. Not
> to invoke Foucault as an authority figure here, but the following is
> apropos.
>
> Let's take an example that touches us all, that of Poland. If we
> raise the question of Poland in strictly political terms, it's clear that
> we
> quickly reach the point of saying there's nothing we can do. We can't
> dispatch a team of paratroopers, and we can't send armored cars to
> liberate
> Warsaw. I think that, politically, we have to recognize this, but I think
> we also agree that, for ethical reasons, we have to raise the problem of
> Poland in the form of a nonacceptance of what is happening there, and a
> nonacceptance of the passivity of our own governments. I think this
> attitude is an ethical one, but it is also political; it does not consist
> in
> saying merely, "I protest," but in making of that attitude a political
> phenomenon that is as substantial as possible, and one which those who
> govern, here or there, will sooner or later be obliged to take into
> account.
> ("Politics and Ethics: An Interview").
>
> Nathan
> n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
>
> ______________________________________________
> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
>