OK, my view is that they are not all that useful for iterating a Foucaultian
politics, unless you treat hegemony and Foucaultian politics at a very
general level of being anti-foundational, or you put Foucault through what I
think is a fairly questionable reading. But please elaborate on your
thinking here.
Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LightofMadness InMyEyes [SMTP:crazedstalker@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 28 February 2000 15:00
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: F on discourse in institutional contexts
>
> The important question, though, isn't whether they want to distinguish
> themselves from Foucault, but whether the kinds of politics they lay out
> can be useful to various iterations of Foucauldian politics of resistance,
> and I believe they can.
> But, you should just go straight to the source and read the Gramsci.
>
> -- margret
> ---
> "There are stones buried in your soul,
> and only a fool would blame the death of rock and roll." -- Thomas Dolby
>
>
>
politics, unless you treat hegemony and Foucaultian politics at a very
general level of being anti-foundational, or you put Foucault through what I
think is a fairly questionable reading. But please elaborate on your
thinking here.
Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LightofMadness InMyEyes [SMTP:crazedstalker@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 28 February 2000 15:00
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: F on discourse in institutional contexts
>
> The important question, though, isn't whether they want to distinguish
> themselves from Foucault, but whether the kinds of politics they lay out
> can be useful to various iterations of Foucauldian politics of resistance,
> and I believe they can.
> But, you should just go straight to the source and read the Gramsci.
>
> -- margret
> ---
> "There are stones buried in your soul,
> and only a fool would blame the death of rock and roll." -- Thomas Dolby
>
>
>