I've watched the debate on postmodernism with some interest, and to be
honest, some disappointment. I don't like the term 'postmodernism', and i
certainly don't think that i am a 'postmodernist', even though Nietzsche,
Heidegger and Foucault are the main foci of my work. I wonder if lumping all
manner of people together under a single term is a very useful way to attack
them. You can then pick the weakest, and think you have destroyed them all.
But a couple of points:-
1. There is a world of difference between condemning compulsory
heterosexuality and condemning heterosexuality. Equally i doubt that
condemning heterosexuality is evolutionary suicide. The world is doing just
fine without sons or daughters of Foucault, just as it would without my
producing sons or daughters...
2. Habermas has not roundly critiqued PM. His book the Philosophical
Discourse of Modernity is a very weak effort. There _is_ potentially a very
strong case to be made against these arguments (with the proviso that they
are not homogeneous), but i don't see it in this work. It is lazy invective,
with a failure to read. The suggestion that Habermas "points up the way
towards a fulfilment of the promises of modernity, an horizon which PM is
unable to counter!" is very problematic.
Someone has already mentioned Mengele and Oppenheimer. Adorno & Horkheimer
explain this very well. What seems to me most interesting is precisely the
problems of the project of modernity. Who needs to be excluded in order for
this to work? What other possibilities does the modern provide for? These
questions are presumably why much of the so-called PM writing is written
by/for those the modern project fails - non-whites, women,
non-heterosexuals, the non-West, etc. etc. This does not necessarily require
giving up on the project in total, but looking at the problems within it.
Anyway, the point of me writing here was not really to intervene in what has
been said so far, but to suggest that there are some valuable issues on
precisely this point in Foucault's 1975-76 lecture course <<Il faut defendre
la societe>> which was published in 1997. This picks up on a number of
themes explored in the last chapter of the first volume of the History of
Sexuality, and leads toward the bio-power work of the later 70s. Does anyone
know of English language reviews/commentaries/uses, other than Stoler's
_Race and the Education of Desire_ book? It seems to me to be a very useful
course that has not been made use of. Any leads gratefully received.
Best wishes
Stuart
Dr Stuart Elden
Lecturer in Politics
Department of Politics and International Studies
University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL, UK
honest, some disappointment. I don't like the term 'postmodernism', and i
certainly don't think that i am a 'postmodernist', even though Nietzsche,
Heidegger and Foucault are the main foci of my work. I wonder if lumping all
manner of people together under a single term is a very useful way to attack
them. You can then pick the weakest, and think you have destroyed them all.
But a couple of points:-
1. There is a world of difference between condemning compulsory
heterosexuality and condemning heterosexuality. Equally i doubt that
condemning heterosexuality is evolutionary suicide. The world is doing just
fine without sons or daughters of Foucault, just as it would without my
producing sons or daughters...
2. Habermas has not roundly critiqued PM. His book the Philosophical
Discourse of Modernity is a very weak effort. There _is_ potentially a very
strong case to be made against these arguments (with the proviso that they
are not homogeneous), but i don't see it in this work. It is lazy invective,
with a failure to read. The suggestion that Habermas "points up the way
towards a fulfilment of the promises of modernity, an horizon which PM is
unable to counter!" is very problematic.
Someone has already mentioned Mengele and Oppenheimer. Adorno & Horkheimer
explain this very well. What seems to me most interesting is precisely the
problems of the project of modernity. Who needs to be excluded in order for
this to work? What other possibilities does the modern provide for? These
questions are presumably why much of the so-called PM writing is written
by/for those the modern project fails - non-whites, women,
non-heterosexuals, the non-West, etc. etc. This does not necessarily require
giving up on the project in total, but looking at the problems within it.
Anyway, the point of me writing here was not really to intervene in what has
been said so far, but to suggest that there are some valuable issues on
precisely this point in Foucault's 1975-76 lecture course <<Il faut defendre
la societe>> which was published in 1997. This picks up on a number of
themes explored in the last chapter of the first volume of the History of
Sexuality, and leads toward the bio-power work of the later 70s. Does anyone
know of English language reviews/commentaries/uses, other than Stoler's
_Race and the Education of Desire_ book? It seems to me to be a very useful
course that has not been made use of. Any leads gratefully received.
Best wishes
Stuart
Dr Stuart Elden
Lecturer in Politics
Department of Politics and International Studies
University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL, UK