Foucault and pragmatism

The question is not whether thinking differently is political, but whether it is politically useful. It is all well and good for academics to proclaim that our new thinking has great political implications, but how exactly has thinking in a new way about, to take a particularly relevant example to Foucault, prisons, actually contributing to any kind of change/improvement (or is Foucault even useful for determining what would constitute an improvement?). For the pragmatist, the final question is one of utility- thinking differently does nothing to help the mental patients whom even Foucault admits are treated badly. Foucault was involved in political action surrounding prisons, perhaps someone can enlighten us on what exactly his involvement was? It may not have been the liberal politics that Rorty recommends, but then Rorty is not really the best representative of "American pragmatism". He paints Dewey, for example, as much more of a conventional liberal than he actually was. !
I wonder if anyone has an opinion about Dewey, as opposed to Rorty. Dewey seems at some basic level to converge with Foucault. Dewey is critical of science's truth claims and of the division between the humanities and the social sciences. Dewey and Foucault both have a much more radical conception of democracy than what either saw in America or France. My question, then, is what exactly are the politics of thinking differently, and how do they relate to the goals of Deweyan, rather than Rortyan, pragmatism?

foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Yes, to think different is poltical position in the
> age of mass thinking; its the philosophy in the
> policy.In this sense foucault is polticaly usefull.But
> an american pragmatist can not understand that.
> -
> Zhivko
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at

Partial thread listing: