It is interesting to ponder and try to assess the "universal" authority of
this or that thinker, and then to wonder why or why not they are speaking
publicly, but in the case of Foucault as a contrast to Chomsky, Foucault
distinguished the "universal" from the "specific" intellectual. He declined
to speak as a "universal" intellectual because of the knowledge/power
effects, and instead made his "public" statements (outside the academy) as a
"specific" intellectual. A specific intellectual, as he explained, is
located in three specific ways: by class, his position in relation to
class, and his location in terms of his intellectual labor. Were Foucault
alive, and were he to speak about Sept. 11 (and I'm uncomfortable playing
these "what if" games about the past and present), my guess is that his
comments would be made in relation to his intellectual labors--studying the
state, for instance, and racism, and Islam as a political force.
I concur with the value of timely silence for many reasons, one of which is
to situate one's commentary in specific ways.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: eldorra mitchell [mailto:manynotone@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:33 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Derrida and Silence
-- Fair enough it all sounds very noble. Noble
silence. Whatever. I prefer Robert Fisk and Noam
Chomsky. Besides it shall make no difference whatever
Jacques Derrida does or does not say. If people are
wondering what he thinks, I would imagine it was
because theya re interested in his moral position...
His 'authority' as a public figure does not rank as
did Michel Foucault and Jean-Paul Sartre. But since we
are discussing this, it was Gilles Deleuze who
expressed his regret that no one equal to Michel
Foucault -- at least back in 1988 -- was alive who
could and would take a stand on matters which made a
difference. That is to say Foucault was the last
intellectual figure with enough universal respect to
be heard by any state authority. He had that sort of
authority and Jacques Derrida does not. Or if he does
it is limited to a very small circle and does not
effect any level of the public and certainly not the
state policy makers.
--- maureen ford <mford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I
would like to speak in support of Stuart Elden's
> reference to the wisdom
> of silence, and speak against the call for Derrida
> to fill a void somehow
> left with Foucault's absence. In addition to the
> wisdom of taking time to
> consider before speaking (not to mention waiting for
> a time when genuine
> dialogue, including listening, might be possible...
> a time at which we might
> not yet have arrived), I recall Foucault's
> reluctance to speak as a "public
> intellectual" such that his speaking would be
> conferred with an
> all-encompassing authority. The very call for
> Derrida to join Chomsky and
> Fisk in making public declarations itself seems
> dangerous in just the way
> Foucault resisted. I don't have the document here
> with me but I am thinking
> of the contrast between Foucault and Chomsky's
> comments in their join
> interview...
>
> If Derrida may only speak because it is demanded by
> an audience that is
> ready to give the weight of his seemingly singular
> "brilliance" then it
> seems perhaps wise not to speak at all.
>
> maureen
>
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat
events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com
this or that thinker, and then to wonder why or why not they are speaking
publicly, but in the case of Foucault as a contrast to Chomsky, Foucault
distinguished the "universal" from the "specific" intellectual. He declined
to speak as a "universal" intellectual because of the knowledge/power
effects, and instead made his "public" statements (outside the academy) as a
"specific" intellectual. A specific intellectual, as he explained, is
located in three specific ways: by class, his position in relation to
class, and his location in terms of his intellectual labor. Were Foucault
alive, and were he to speak about Sept. 11 (and I'm uncomfortable playing
these "what if" games about the past and present), my guess is that his
comments would be made in relation to his intellectual labors--studying the
state, for instance, and racism, and Islam as a political force.
I concur with the value of timely silence for many reasons, one of which is
to situate one's commentary in specific ways.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: eldorra mitchell [mailto:manynotone@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:33 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Derrida and Silence
-- Fair enough it all sounds very noble. Noble
silence. Whatever. I prefer Robert Fisk and Noam
Chomsky. Besides it shall make no difference whatever
Jacques Derrida does or does not say. If people are
wondering what he thinks, I would imagine it was
because theya re interested in his moral position...
His 'authority' as a public figure does not rank as
did Michel Foucault and Jean-Paul Sartre. But since we
are discussing this, it was Gilles Deleuze who
expressed his regret that no one equal to Michel
Foucault -- at least back in 1988 -- was alive who
could and would take a stand on matters which made a
difference. That is to say Foucault was the last
intellectual figure with enough universal respect to
be heard by any state authority. He had that sort of
authority and Jacques Derrida does not. Or if he does
it is limited to a very small circle and does not
effect any level of the public and certainly not the
state policy makers.
--- maureen ford <mford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I
would like to speak in support of Stuart Elden's
> reference to the wisdom
> of silence, and speak against the call for Derrida
> to fill a void somehow
> left with Foucault's absence. In addition to the
> wisdom of taking time to
> consider before speaking (not to mention waiting for
> a time when genuine
> dialogue, including listening, might be possible...
> a time at which we might
> not yet have arrived), I recall Foucault's
> reluctance to speak as a "public
> intellectual" such that his speaking would be
> conferred with an
> all-encompassing authority. The very call for
> Derrida to join Chomsky and
> Fisk in making public declarations itself seems
> dangerous in just the way
> Foucault resisted. I don't have the document here
> with me but I am thinking
> of the contrast between Foucault and Chomsky's
> comments in their join
> interview...
>
> If Derrida may only speak because it is demanded by
> an audience that is
> ready to give the weight of his seemingly singular
> "brilliance" then it
> seems perhaps wise not to speak at all.
>
> maureen
>
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat
events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com