--0-1288702486-994269891=:83587
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Foucault is pretty clear as to what he thinks of such psychologization of the text at the end of his introduction to _The Archaeology of Knowledge_. Foucault remarks, "'What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing-- with a rather shaky hand --a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself, finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again. I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. DO NOT ASK WHO i AM AND DO NOT ASK ME TO REMAIN THE SAME: LEAVE IT TO OUR BUREAUCRATS AND OUR POLICE TO SEE THAT OUR PAPERS ARE IN ORDER. At least spare us their morality when we write.'" (Foucault 1972; 17).
It seems that Foucault saw his writing as an activity of self-transformation and becoming that rendered the question "who" irrelevant and futile. It has been suggested that a refusal to talk about Foucault's homosexuality indicates a sort of rape of Foucault, but in fact a discussion of Foucault in terms of his sexuality seems much more the rape... Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual." But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at "homosexuality" itself. Such a gesture would mark a rape of Foucault insofar as it would be based on a refusal to trace the plane of concepts he constructed, treating them as ultimately irrelevant representations of his "true to life" (insert "unmediated" here) practices. Others are quite right to point out that texts signify in the absence of their writers, and this suggests that any biographical information about the man Foucault is little more than fetishized trivia. What counts is the machine he constructed and the effects it can produce with respect to our own practices. Foucault the man is not a model to be followed, but his text is certainly a tool to be put to work. What's in question is a technology of the self and the effects it can produce, not *a* self.
Best regards,
Paul Bryant
Arianna <a.bove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer. The
writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.
The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author are
only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the operations
we force texts to undergo.
In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses methods
similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying to prove the
value of a text by its author's saintliness.
What difference does it make who is speaking?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nathan
Goralnik
Sent: 04 July 2001 05:06
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: if -- And
Patrick
Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author and
the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever seriously
philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you really expect me to
believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been written just as easily by
a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? Do you really expect me to
believe that Julia Kristeva has never been depressed? Blindly getting rid of
the author sounds *hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective"
inquiry. You seem to be too ready to efface the question of standpoint and
thus seriously complicate critique.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Crosby
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And
Glen,
Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's
texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato
the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but
I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse
than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the
planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing what
you do is obvious: it's all you can do. And the reason it's all you can do
is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that you can
read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently.
In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't
understand the text, but I can understand that the author liked to have sex
just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like I do! I can
talk about all of that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better
than I can!"
Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for a while,
but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing to see
that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era has eroded
to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls and have your
fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness.
Glen Fuller wrote:
Hi,I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:If we are to say that
sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist'sbackground) does not matter,
then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is 'communicating' (and
how we 'listening') is unaffected by theaforementioned sexual preference
(or, again, any facet of a theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of
you are about ready to crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is
important we know what the sexual preference is of atheorist so as to fully
understand his/her work...No, that is not what I am saying, not really...If
we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a
theorist'sbackground) then we are assuming that what is being communicated
(and how weare listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it
probablyis... but how do we know?We have made a critical assumption
regarding the nature of the relative (tothe listeners - us) speaking
position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?And if we are suggesting that what
a theorist is suggesting is unaffected byhis/her sexual preference (or any
other, etc) then what is the implicitsuggestion there? Like, what, when it
is communicated, is unaffected by therelative speaking position of the
'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social that is...Therefore the
implicit assumption being made when any element of atheorist's personal
background is trivialised as unimportant, is that whatis being communicated
is outside of the social, and that is impossible.Sexuality isn't necessarily
one of the foundations on which I base muchtheoretical currency, unless of
course what is being theorised ISsexuality... And I am not suggesting we
have a mini autobiography with everyword uttered...What I am suggesting is
that awareness of such personal details of theoristsmay affect and eff!
ec!
t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are
trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they
stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential point I
am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the theorist, but
to judge his/her work requiresknowledge of the social trajectory of the
speaker as well.yep,Glen Fuller.----- Original Message -----From: "charmaine
driscoll" To:
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001
11:02 AMSubject: Re: if -- And
Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated
thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous
Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere,
andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was
homosexualmakes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.
From: Patrick Crosby
Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand thedifferences
in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one needs to understand
that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. Andwhether Foucault was a
top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle position of a 3-way just
naturally makes all the
difference
in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder of Things." Of course!
Why didn't I think of
that?Regards,C.Driscoll_____________________________________________________
____________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--0-1288702486-994269891=:83587
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>Foucault is pretty clear as to what he thinks of such psychologization of the text at the end of his introduction to _The Archaeology of Knowledge_. Foucault remarks, "'What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing-- with a rather shaky hand --a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself, finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again. I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. DO NOT ASK WHO i AM AND DO NOT ASK ME TO REMAIN THE SAME: LEAVE IT TO OUR BUREAUCRATS AND OUR POLICE TO SEE THAT OUR PAPERS ARE IN ORDER. At least spare us their morality when we write.'" (Foucault 1972; 17).
<P>It seems that Foucault saw his writing as an activity of self-transformation and becoming that rendered the question "who" irrelevant and futile. It has been suggested that a refusal to talk about Foucault's homosexuality indicates a sort of rape of Foucault, but in fact a discussion of Foucault in terms of his sexuality seems much more the rape... Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual." But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at "homosexuality" itself. Such a gesture would mark a rape of Foucault insofar as it would be based on a refusal to trace the plane of concepts he constructed, treating them as ultimately irrelevant representations of his "true to life" (insert "unmediated" here) practices. Others are quite right to point out that texts signify in the absence of their writers, and this suggests that any biographical information about the man Foucault is little more than fetishized trivia. What counts is the machine he constructed and the effects it can produce with respect to our own practices. Foucault the man is not a model to be followed, but his text is certainly a tool to be put to work. What's in question is a technology of the self and the effects it can produce, not *a* self.
<P>Best regards,
<P>Paul Bryant
<P>
<P>
<P> <B><I>Arianna <a.bove@xxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer. The<BR>writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.<BR>The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author are<BR>only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the operations<BR>we force texts to undergo.<BR>In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses methods<BR>similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying to prove the<BR>value of a text by its author's saintliness.<BR>What difference does it make who is speaking?<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nathan<BR>Goralnik<BR>Sent: 04 July 2001 05:06<BR>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: if -- And<BR><BR><BR>Patrick<BR><BR>Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author and<BR>the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever seriously<BR>philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you really expect me to<BR>believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been written just as easily by<BR>a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? Do you really expect me to<BR>believe that Julia Kristeva has never been depressed? Blindly getting rid of<BR>the author sounds *hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective"<BR>inquiry. You seem to be too ready to efface the question of standpoint and<BR>thus seriously complicate critique.<BR><BR>Nate<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: Patrick Crosby<BR>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM<BR>Subject: Re: if -- And<BR><BR><BR>Glen,<BR>Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's<BR>texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato<BR>the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but<BR>I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse<BR>than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the<BR>planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing what<BR>you do is obvious: it's all you can do. And the reason it's all you can do<BR>is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that you can<BR>read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently.<BR>In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't<BR>understand the text, but I can understand that the author liked to have sex<BR>just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like I do! I can<BR>talk about all of that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better<BR>than I can!"<BR>Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for a while,<BR>but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing to see<BR>that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era has eroded<BR>to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls and have your<BR>fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness.<BR><BR><BR>Glen Fuller wrote:<BR><BR>Hi,I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:If we are to say that<BR>sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist'sbackground) does not matter,<BR>then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is 'communicating' (and<BR>how we 'listening') is unaffected by theaforementioned sexual preference<BR>(or, again, any facet of a theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of<BR>you are about ready to crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is<BR>important we know what the sexual preference is of atheorist so as to fully<BR>understand his/her work...No, that is not what I am saying, not really...If<BR>we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a<BR>theorist'sbackground) then we are assuming that what is being communicated<BR>(and how weare listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it<BR>probablyis... but how do we know?We have made a critical assumption<BR>regarding the nature of the relative (tothe listeners - us) speaking<BR>position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?And if we are suggesting that what<BR>a theorist is suggesting is unaffected byhis/her sexual preference (or any<BR>other, etc) then what is the implicitsuggestion there? Like, what, when it<BR>is communicated, is unaffected by therelative speaking position of the<BR>'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social that is...Therefore the<BR>implicit assumption being made when any element of atheorist's personal<BR>background is trivialised as unimportant, is that whatis being communicated<BR>is outside of the social, and that is impossible.Sexuality isn't necessarily<BR>one of the foundations on which I base muchtheoretical currency, unless of<BR>course what is being theorised ISsexuality... And I am not suggesting we<BR>have a mini autobiography with everyword uttered...What I am suggesting is<BR>that awareness of such personal details of theoristsmay affect and eff!<BR>ec!<BR>t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are<BR>trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they<BR>stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential point I<BR>am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the theorist, but<BR>to judge his/her work requiresknowledge of the social trajectory of the<BR>speaker as well.yep,Glen Fuller.----- Original Message -----From: "charmaine<BR>driscoll" <MISSPLATEAU@xxxxxxxxxxx>To:<BR><FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Cc:<BR><DELEUZE-GUATTARI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001<BR>11:02 AMSubject: Re: if -- And<BR>Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated<BR>thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous<BR>Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere,<BR>andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was<BR>homosexualmakes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.<BR>From: Patrick Crosby <PCROSBY@xxxxxxxx><BR>Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand thedifferences<BR>in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one needs to understand<BR>that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. Andwhether Foucault was a<BR>top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle position of a 3-way just<BR>naturally makes all the<BR>difference<BR>in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder of Things." Of course!<BR>Why didn't I think of<BR>that?Regards,C.Driscoll_____________________________________________________<BR>____________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at<BR>http://explorer.msn.com<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!<BR><a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=tagline";>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/</a>
--0-1288702486-994269891=:83587--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Foucault is pretty clear as to what he thinks of such psychologization of the text at the end of his introduction to _The Archaeology of Knowledge_. Foucault remarks, "'What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing-- with a rather shaky hand --a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself, finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again. I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. DO NOT ASK WHO i AM AND DO NOT ASK ME TO REMAIN THE SAME: LEAVE IT TO OUR BUREAUCRATS AND OUR POLICE TO SEE THAT OUR PAPERS ARE IN ORDER. At least spare us their morality when we write.'" (Foucault 1972; 17).
It seems that Foucault saw his writing as an activity of self-transformation and becoming that rendered the question "who" irrelevant and futile. It has been suggested that a refusal to talk about Foucault's homosexuality indicates a sort of rape of Foucault, but in fact a discussion of Foucault in terms of his sexuality seems much more the rape... Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual." But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at "homosexuality" itself. Such a gesture would mark a rape of Foucault insofar as it would be based on a refusal to trace the plane of concepts he constructed, treating them as ultimately irrelevant representations of his "true to life" (insert "unmediated" here) practices. Others are quite right to point out that texts signify in the absence of their writers, and this suggests that any biographical information about the man Foucault is little more than fetishized trivia. What counts is the machine he constructed and the effects it can produce with respect to our own practices. Foucault the man is not a model to be followed, but his text is certainly a tool to be put to work. What's in question is a technology of the self and the effects it can produce, not *a* self.
Best regards,
Paul Bryant
Arianna <a.bove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer. The
writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.
The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author are
only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the operations
we force texts to undergo.
In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses methods
similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying to prove the
value of a text by its author's saintliness.
What difference does it make who is speaking?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nathan
Goralnik
Sent: 04 July 2001 05:06
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: if -- And
Patrick
Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author and
the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever seriously
philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you really expect me to
believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been written just as easily by
a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? Do you really expect me to
believe that Julia Kristeva has never been depressed? Blindly getting rid of
the author sounds *hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective"
inquiry. You seem to be too ready to efface the question of standpoint and
thus seriously complicate critique.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Crosby
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And
Glen,
Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's
texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato
the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but
I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse
than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the
planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing what
you do is obvious: it's all you can do. And the reason it's all you can do
is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that you can
read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently.
In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't
understand the text, but I can understand that the author liked to have sex
just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like I do! I can
talk about all of that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better
than I can!"
Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for a while,
but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing to see
that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era has eroded
to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls and have your
fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness.
Glen Fuller wrote:
Hi,I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:If we are to say that
sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist'sbackground) does not matter,
then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is 'communicating' (and
how we 'listening') is unaffected by theaforementioned sexual preference
(or, again, any facet of a theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of
you are about ready to crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is
important we know what the sexual preference is of atheorist so as to fully
understand his/her work...No, that is not what I am saying, not really...If
we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a
theorist'sbackground) then we are assuming that what is being communicated
(and how weare listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it
probablyis... but how do we know?We have made a critical assumption
regarding the nature of the relative (tothe listeners - us) speaking
position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?And if we are suggesting that what
a theorist is suggesting is unaffected byhis/her sexual preference (or any
other, etc) then what is the implicitsuggestion there? Like, what, when it
is communicated, is unaffected by therelative speaking position of the
'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social that is...Therefore the
implicit assumption being made when any element of atheorist's personal
background is trivialised as unimportant, is that whatis being communicated
is outside of the social, and that is impossible.Sexuality isn't necessarily
one of the foundations on which I base muchtheoretical currency, unless of
course what is being theorised ISsexuality... And I am not suggesting we
have a mini autobiography with everyword uttered...What I am suggesting is
that awareness of such personal details of theoristsmay affect and eff!
ec!
t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are
trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they
stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential point I
am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the theorist, but
to judge his/her work requiresknowledge of the social trajectory of the
speaker as well.yep,Glen Fuller.----- Original Message -----From: "charmaine
driscoll" To:
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001
11:02 AMSubject: Re: if -- And
Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated
thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous
Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere,
andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was
homosexualmakes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.
From: Patrick Crosby
Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand thedifferences
in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one needs to understand
that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. Andwhether Foucault was a
top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle position of a 3-way just
naturally makes all the
difference
in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder of Things." Of course!
Why didn't I think of
that?Regards,C.Driscoll_____________________________________________________
____________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--0-1288702486-994269891=:83587
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>Foucault is pretty clear as to what he thinks of such psychologization of the text at the end of his introduction to _The Archaeology of Knowledge_. Foucault remarks, "'What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing-- with a rather shaky hand --a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself, finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again. I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. DO NOT ASK WHO i AM AND DO NOT ASK ME TO REMAIN THE SAME: LEAVE IT TO OUR BUREAUCRATS AND OUR POLICE TO SEE THAT OUR PAPERS ARE IN ORDER. At least spare us their morality when we write.'" (Foucault 1972; 17).
<P>It seems that Foucault saw his writing as an activity of self-transformation and becoming that rendered the question "who" irrelevant and futile. It has been suggested that a refusal to talk about Foucault's homosexuality indicates a sort of rape of Foucault, but in fact a discussion of Foucault in terms of his sexuality seems much more the rape... Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual." But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at "homosexuality" itself. Such a gesture would mark a rape of Foucault insofar as it would be based on a refusal to trace the plane of concepts he constructed, treating them as ultimately irrelevant representations of his "true to life" (insert "unmediated" here) practices. Others are quite right to point out that texts signify in the absence of their writers, and this suggests that any biographical information about the man Foucault is little more than fetishized trivia. What counts is the machine he constructed and the effects it can produce with respect to our own practices. Foucault the man is not a model to be followed, but his text is certainly a tool to be put to work. What's in question is a technology of the self and the effects it can produce, not *a* self.
<P>Best regards,
<P>Paul Bryant
<P>
<P>
<P> <B><I>Arianna <a.bove@xxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer. The<BR>writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.<BR>The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author are<BR>only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the operations<BR>we force texts to undergo.<BR>In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses methods<BR>similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying to prove the<BR>value of a text by its author's saintliness.<BR>What difference does it make who is speaking?<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nathan<BR>Goralnik<BR>Sent: 04 July 2001 05:06<BR>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: if -- And<BR><BR><BR>Patrick<BR><BR>Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author and<BR>the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever seriously<BR>philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you really expect me to<BR>believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been written just as easily by<BR>a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? Do you really expect me to<BR>believe that Julia Kristeva has never been depressed? Blindly getting rid of<BR>the author sounds *hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective"<BR>inquiry. You seem to be too ready to efface the question of standpoint and<BR>thus seriously complicate critique.<BR><BR>Nate<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: Patrick Crosby<BR>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM<BR>Subject: Re: if -- And<BR><BR><BR>Glen,<BR>Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's<BR>texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato<BR>the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but<BR>I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse<BR>than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the<BR>planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing what<BR>you do is obvious: it's all you can do. And the reason it's all you can do<BR>is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that you can<BR>read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently.<BR>In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't<BR>understand the text, but I can understand that the author liked to have sex<BR>just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like I do! I can<BR>talk about all of that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better<BR>than I can!"<BR>Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for a while,<BR>but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing to see<BR>that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era has eroded<BR>to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls and have your<BR>fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness.<BR><BR><BR>Glen Fuller wrote:<BR><BR>Hi,I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:If we are to say that<BR>sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist'sbackground) does not matter,<BR>then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is 'communicating' (and<BR>how we 'listening') is unaffected by theaforementioned sexual preference<BR>(or, again, any facet of a theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of<BR>you are about ready to crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is<BR>important we know what the sexual preference is of atheorist so as to fully<BR>understand his/her work...No, that is not what I am saying, not really...If<BR>we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a<BR>theorist'sbackground) then we are assuming that what is being communicated<BR>(and how weare listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it<BR>probablyis... but how do we know?We have made a critical assumption<BR>regarding the nature of the relative (tothe listeners - us) speaking<BR>position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?And if we are suggesting that what<BR>a theorist is suggesting is unaffected byhis/her sexual preference (or any<BR>other, etc) then what is the implicitsuggestion there? Like, what, when it<BR>is communicated, is unaffected by therelative speaking position of the<BR>'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social that is...Therefore the<BR>implicit assumption being made when any element of atheorist's personal<BR>background is trivialised as unimportant, is that whatis being communicated<BR>is outside of the social, and that is impossible.Sexuality isn't necessarily<BR>one of the foundations on which I base muchtheoretical currency, unless of<BR>course what is being theorised ISsexuality... And I am not suggesting we<BR>have a mini autobiography with everyword uttered...What I am suggesting is<BR>that awareness of such personal details of theoristsmay affect and eff!<BR>ec!<BR>t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are<BR>trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they<BR>stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential point I<BR>am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the theorist, but<BR>to judge his/her work requiresknowledge of the social trajectory of the<BR>speaker as well.yep,Glen Fuller.----- Original Message -----From: "charmaine<BR>driscoll" <MISSPLATEAU@xxxxxxxxxxx>To:<BR><FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Cc:<BR><DELEUZE-GUATTARI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001<BR>11:02 AMSubject: Re: if -- And<BR>Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated<BR>thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous<BR>Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere,<BR>andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was<BR>homosexualmakes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.<BR>From: Patrick Crosby <PCROSBY@xxxxxxxx><BR>Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand thedifferences<BR>in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one needs to understand<BR>that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. Andwhether Foucault was a<BR>top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle position of a 3-way just<BR>naturally makes all the<BR>difference<BR>in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder of Things." Of course!<BR>Why didn't I think of<BR>that?Regards,C.Driscoll_____________________________________________________<BR>____________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at<BR>http://explorer.msn.com<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!<BR><a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=tagline";>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/</a>
--0-1288702486-994269891=:83587--