Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a

this thread of thought is interesting to me, but has probably been repeated
many times in several places. i'm wondering how most people approach this
criticism. for example, why is this question so often asked about certain
theorists and not others? (i.e., re: political utility)

also, what is the function of a theoretical discourse (or rhetoric, in the
sense of burke) which relies less on persuasion and more on identification?
if these discourses work to create an orientation (or re-orient), can they
be considered negligible? how could one even measure their effect?


>Foucault is politically useful as far as resistance goes, or as far as
>deconstruction. As for what will be constructed in place of what is torn
>down, Foucault ceases to be useful. If one is to apply Foucault, oppressive
>knowledge and the power it wields upon the body, if oppressive, should be
>resisted. Any alternative knowledge is also problematic -- thus the
>difficulty in polticizing Foucault. What I've got to say that I think is
>somewhat new is that this may not lead to nihilism, as his critics complain,
>because there will always be more order to resist. There will always be
>discursive power and normalization. So perhaps it's all in the process, or
>the ritual, of deconstructing/resisting.

Partial thread listing: