<< And since F never tells us that we shouldn't operate under norms, he has
no indictment of them. >>
Foucault isn't a moral philosopher, Bryan. He's (among other things) a
historian. He analyzes historically specific operations of power and
knowledge, and studies the formation of discourses. I'm not sure what
Foucault "tells us" really matters. None of the people on this list are
sheep, Bryan. I think that Foucault has made us aware of the historical
contingency and cultural specificity of a variety of discourses, and has
given us some methodological tools to critique the conditions and effects of
the formation of discourses. A perfect example is Asher's response to the
assertion that homosexuality is synonymous with some essential sexual
deviancy. This notion seems to reinforce heterosexism--something I
personally dislike. Foucault doesn't argue that we should abandon truth.
Rather, he points out the subtle ways in which true discourses have served
to marginalize and demonize people. If you don't like that, well then
Foucault's thought seems to me to provide a toolkit for micro-political
resistance.
Please try to be a bit more respectful, a bit more humble, and a bit less
polemical, Bryan. The members of this list possess an understanding of
Foucault's thought that is far richer than you or I could ever imagine.
~Nate
--
"Thought is no longer theoretical. As soon as it functions it
offends or reconciles, attracts or repels, breaks, dissociates,
unites, or re-unites; it cannot help but liberate and enslave.
Even before prescribing, suggesting a future, saying what must
be done, even before exhorting or merely sounding an alarm,
thought, at the level of its existence, in its very dawning, is
in itself an action--a perilous act."
-Michel Foucault
no indictment of them. >>
Foucault isn't a moral philosopher, Bryan. He's (among other things) a
historian. He analyzes historically specific operations of power and
knowledge, and studies the formation of discourses. I'm not sure what
Foucault "tells us" really matters. None of the people on this list are
sheep, Bryan. I think that Foucault has made us aware of the historical
contingency and cultural specificity of a variety of discourses, and has
given us some methodological tools to critique the conditions and effects of
the formation of discourses. A perfect example is Asher's response to the
assertion that homosexuality is synonymous with some essential sexual
deviancy. This notion seems to reinforce heterosexism--something I
personally dislike. Foucault doesn't argue that we should abandon truth.
Rather, he points out the subtle ways in which true discourses have served
to marginalize and demonize people. If you don't like that, well then
Foucault's thought seems to me to provide a toolkit for micro-political
resistance.
Please try to be a bit more respectful, a bit more humble, and a bit less
polemical, Bryan. The members of this list possess an understanding of
Foucault's thought that is far richer than you or I could ever imagine.
~Nate
--
"Thought is no longer theoretical. As soon as it functions it
offends or reconciles, attracts or repels, breaks, dissociates,
unites, or re-unites; it cannot help but liberate and enslave.
Even before prescribing, suggesting a future, saying what must
be done, even before exhorting or merely sounding an alarm,
thought, at the level of its existence, in its very dawning, is
in itself an action--a perilous act."
-Michel Foucault