Re: the concept of "event" and Bush

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


You bring up a question that interests me a lot, the concept of events.
And the application to the often referred to 'Bush inarticulateness'
makes it even more interesting.

First a comment on the concept of 'event'. What Foucault text exactly
did you refer to? The concept of "event" appears often in Foucault's
writings. As I read the various texts, Foucault employs the 'event'
concept primarily as a way to break up or disrupt well-established and
taken-for-granted continuities in traditional history, and as a tool to
ensure that historical events are seen and grasped in their unique
singularity and not forced into pre-established patterns of historical

In Archaeology, statements are characterized as discursive events and I
guess even "inarticulate" ones qualify, but it is not clear to me (and I
believe it would have to be clarified) what Bush statements you are
referring to in terms of object, concepts and themes. George W. Bush's
inarticulateness in general would in my opinion not qualify as a 'event'
in a Foucauldian sense. The concept of 'event' is exactly a concept
forcing us to grasp statements in their sudden and unique existence.

Bush's inarticulateness is quickly becoming a taken-for-granted in the
media, and therefore one that in a Foucauldian perspective needs to
looked at closely. If the guy is really so inarticulate, why is he so
popular? I am asking as a worried European environmentalist. How come
that what we were so quick to construct as Bush's 'inarticulateness'
turns out so powerful in producing e.g. environmental disasters both in
the US and globally. There are some quick and simplistic answers to
these question and they are of course very interesting, because they are
so predictable and unsurprising.

Sorry, this comment turned out a quite a bit longer than expected. I
hope there will be some responses.


Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> I was just re-reading Foucault's discussion of the notion of the sudden
> "event" - the creator of historical discontinuities? Would it be wise to
> think of such historical accidents as George W. Bush's inarticulateness as
> an "event?" What are the boundaries of the term? Where does the realm of the
> event and the realm of non-discursive practice begin?
> ~Nate
> --
> "The living body is a loving body, and the loving
> body is a speaking body. Without love we are nothing
> but walking corpses. Love is essential to the living
> body, and it is essential in bringing the living
> body to life in language." ~Kelly Oliver
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jesper Grolin
Content-Disposition: attachment;

tel;fax:+45 38 15 28 65
tel;home:+45 38 11 70 15
tel;work:+45 38 15 29 60
org:Copenhagen Business School;Department for Organization & Industrial Sociology
adr:;;Solbjerg Plads 3;2000 Frederiksberg;Denmark;;
title:Assistant Research Professor
fn:Jesper Grolin


Partial thread listing: