> 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.
Maybe I'm out of my depth here, but from what normative basis can you make
the above value judgement ("I don't")? The fact that, as far as I can tell,
Foucault does not provide such a basis strikes me as exactly the argument
that "conservatives" like Cheney (or some Marxists) would make. Foucault's
project provides no basis for your moral outgrage and this is a glaring
fault in my opinion. I think this would be where "relatavism" would enter
for Cheney.
Frankly, it is not clear to me how one can argue the silencing of one group
in favor of another after reading Foucault--or perhaps I am misreading your
post?
I have not read her book.
Todd Comer
> 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