More to the point, if David Cheshier, or anyone else, thinks that there's an
intellectual legitimacy to Lynne Cheney's book, or her argument against
Foucault, then he or she should state what they think that is. The fact that
some folks use Foucault to proselytize to *facilitate emancipatory politics*
is beside the point, unless one thinks that those who argue for the reverse
-- that is, politics of slavery -- deserve equal time. I don't.
Misrepresentation is misrepresentation, and it certainly doesn't justify
further misrepresentation. I know, I know, it's going to happen, the law of
action and reaction, etc., but I can't imagine why one would waste one's
time. Anyone read Buchannan's book lately?
joe brennan
In a message dated 09/23/2000 12:35:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joudmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
Cheney's book was in fact a best-seller several years back when it first
appeared. While she is in many respects a noxious figure on the
nation's political stage, I recommend that critics at least read her
argument before casting judgment, that is, if they care enough about
her politics to do the necessary work. Yes, the woman has a tendency to
portray her own positions in strident and cartoonish ways, but then again
the Nation has every partisan incentive to help her along.
More to the point of this particular list: I mean this as no criticism of
Foucauldian scholars, but many dozens, maybe hundreds, have pursued the
Foucauldian project because of their view that, if properly proselytized,
his insights would help facilitate emancipatory politics, or at least to
the precursor emancipation implicit in "unmasking." If his defenders have
the right to defend the utopian promise implicit in Foucault's work, then
his accusers have every right to warn against it, even at the risk of
ridicule from the editors of the Nation.
David Cheshier
>>