Foucault: "The polemicist...proceeds encased in privileges that he
possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he
possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a
just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the
search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is
harmful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat."
I think the debate that has been waged these past two days is
encapsulated by this quote, especially when we get into questions of
one's right to speak based on whether or not they have had relatives die
in past historical battles or mother who experienced painful sequences
of destruction and fear. We can all claim a solidarity in being
repulsed by these situations, even though we may not be able to say we
experienced them or are related to someone who has.
I have not followed the entire debate that has been waged, and perhaps
there was at one time a dialogue, but that has been lost and this seems
an excellent signal to stop, let silence constitute the moment, rather
than a pitched battle of insults, rhetorical questions and ridiculously
abstract notions of 'individuals' versus 'countries' which could never
been an either/or position as Foucault has tried to teach those of us
willing to listen to him. I support Bryan and the call to stop, or if
your polemic must continue, if you feel the battle is worth it, then at
least grant us our request to be left out, so we might discuss, and read
discussion with the purpose of engaging in the production of dialogue
and not a polemic which is after all the style of the 'death camp' and
the 'guillotine'.
Brodie Richards
possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he
possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a
just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the
search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is
harmful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat."
I think the debate that has been waged these past two days is
encapsulated by this quote, especially when we get into questions of
one's right to speak based on whether or not they have had relatives die
in past historical battles or mother who experienced painful sequences
of destruction and fear. We can all claim a solidarity in being
repulsed by these situations, even though we may not be able to say we
experienced them or are related to someone who has.
I have not followed the entire debate that has been waged, and perhaps
there was at one time a dialogue, but that has been lost and this seems
an excellent signal to stop, let silence constitute the moment, rather
than a pitched battle of insults, rhetorical questions and ridiculously
abstract notions of 'individuals' versus 'countries' which could never
been an either/or position as Foucault has tried to teach those of us
willing to listen to him. I support Bryan and the call to stop, or if
your polemic must continue, if you feel the battle is worth it, then at
least grant us our request to be left out, so we might discuss, and read
discussion with the purpose of engaging in the production of dialogue
and not a polemic which is after all the style of the 'death camp' and
the 'guillotine'.
Brodie Richards