Re: if -- And and and and

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'll look forward to more comments in due course!

In the meantime, I must say i share your frustration and find much of Foucault's work difficult to get my head around -
very valuable, but also very difficult. I would appreciate it if anyone on the list with more familiarity with Foucault's work would engage in some
'guidance' toward those of us who struggle with it. I just think its up to those of us who want to learn and engage with others to participate and
'squeeze the trivia out'.

My one-time supervisor (Alison Lee) told me a couple of really helpful things about reading and understanding:
She referred me to a statement of Lacan's cited in Patti Lather's work 'Getting Smart' (1991) (I haven't read Lacan
?If what we are about here is a fundamental turning point in social thought, an epochal shift marked by thinking
differently about how we think (Flax, 1987), the following advice from Lacan is well taken. For anyone beginning to
play with what all of this might mean for our interventions in the world, Lacan cautions, ??to read does not obligate
one to understand. First it is necessary to read ? avoid understanding too quickly? (quoted in Ulmer, 1985: 196).?
(Lather, 1991: 9)
(What a relief that was!)

The other thing was from an article of her own where she says
?Any body of theory which pushes at the boundaries of the conventionally sayable must, by definition, be difficult to
explain and difficult to grasp.? (Lee, 1992: 1)
[Lee, A. 1992, 'Poststructuralism and educational research: some categories and issues', Issues in Educational
Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-12.]

Puts it all in a different perspective, I think - no easier, but different and somehow more bearable.

best regards
Jill : )

Glen Fuller wrote:

> Jill,
> Thanks for the references. I will look them up. I only subscribe to lists on
> the internet that have something that I want to learn more about. There is
> such a body of work and information regarding this, that and in-between... I
> get frustrated sometimes. I seem to normally approach concepts backwards, so
> I appreciate list members suggesting what I should read (besides
> 'everything':).
> Thankyou,
> Glen.
> PS My take on 'the author' is to do with authenticity, or rather the
> authority of authority. Which is not a problem whilst conversation takes
> place within a particular social space or discourse (following a certain
> logic...), but what about the other times? You can see how this ties in with
> the above (and issues surrounding the internet). I should just shoosh first
> and head off to my library...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jill Molan" <Jill.Molan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "foucault list" <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:54 PM
> Subject: RE: if -- And and and and
> > Glen - do i read you right in taking this to be a challenge to Arianna
> about the position she has taken up in regard to 'the author'?
> > If yes, then perhaps it would be productive interrogate what Foucault had
> to say on it - because it's his words (in translation) she's using when she
> > says 'What difference does it make who is speaking?' (Does this make a
> difference, by the way?)
> > In any case, it might be instructive to have a look at what Foucault has
> said about it - it's in Rabinow (1984) 'The Foucault Reader' pp. 101-120,
> but
> > also, in a different translation, in Bouchard (1977) 'Michel Foucault:
> Language, counter-memory and practice' pp. 113-138.
> >
> > I'm sure that Arianna is more than capable of answering for herself, I'm
> responding because i'd like to see a discussion about this on the listwho's
> > for it?
> > cheers
> > Jill
> >
> > Arianna,
> >
> > Why bother putting your name to this email? (Or was that an accident, if
> it
> > doesn't matter who is speaking?)
> > It doesn't make much 'difference', but it does constitute much of a
> > 'sameness' due to 'difference'. As soon as we discard authorship then we
> > also discard the associated responsibility. Heaps of different thinkers
> > create some theory to do with the In/Out of the social (binary logic), I
> > can't see how the social can operate (best for 'you' as an individual
> > subject) without distinction, without definition, without authorship...
> you
> > can't have it both ways ethical responsibility without having something
> able
> > to be accountable. Slander?
> >
> > What do you mean by 'dead man'? Who is this person? God? Sounds like you
> are
> > describing God... who is beyond reproach?
> >
> > When ascertaining 'saintliness', was it not actually uncovering the
> > possibility of the Christians investing themselves into the concept of
> > 'Saint So-and-so'? Trying to discover its truth value?
> > But my main issue with all this is:
> > Where do you draw the line between what should be taken into account and
> > what shouldn't be, when trying to figure out whether a text is not merely
> > worthy of being read, but worthy of being believed?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Glen.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jill Molan
Content-Disposition: attachment;

tel;home:4283 2581
fn:Molan Jill


Partial thread listing: