I was not recommending that anyone read Cheney unless they have an
interest in her politics (as well they might, since her husband may soon
be elected vice president of the United States). In fact I disagree
strongly with her politics, agree with the early expressed
disappointment with her stewardship of the NEH, and find her criticism of
Foucault uninformed by careful reading. Not that the essay in the Nation
summarizes it all that well, either...
My point, which was unfortunately enacted in this reply, is that her
position should not be (a) judged by its rendition in the Nation, a
publication with its own partisan agenda, or (b) dismissed simply because
she warns against the broader implications of philosophical work on the
nation's political and cultural life, when many advocates of the
Foucauldian project have aligned themselves with it precisely because of
these perceived broader effects.
When I say the reply enacts my concern, I'm specifically referring to the
grade school fallacy of arguing that (as Brennan does) anyone who opposes
Foucault's program of promised emancipation thereby supports a "politics
of slavery." Try telling that to Foucault's feminist critics.
You have, of course, every right to refuse to read anyone you like,
whether it's Pat Buchanan or Lynne Cheney, or Paul de Man or Michel
Foucault, for that matter. My point is simply that, if you choose to
exercise your right to resist their ideas on speculation of their
noxiousness, you might then also choose to refrain from commentary on
arguments you're intentionally unfamiliar with.
David Cheshier
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 JBCM2@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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
>
> >>
>
Dr. David Cheshier
Assistant Professor & Director of Debate
Department of Communication
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
o 404-651-2621
f 404-651-1409
e joudmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx