> David McInerney complains that this discussion is
> superficial but does
> not tell us what is so good about the writings that he cites. Except for
> Macherey, who has turned Foucauldian in his later work, the other
> Althusserians repudiate Foucault as relativist and defend the early
> scientific project which Althusser himself repudiated later on.
> Philip Goldstein
This isn't supposed to apply to Montag is it? Montag's reading of Foucault
is generous and critical, doesn't repudiate Foucault as a relativist, and
his reading of Althusser is considerable more nuanced. His recent book on
Althusser made me rethink a number of things about him, not least the light
the posthumous publications shed on the books published in his life. It's
highly recommended.
Stuart
> superficial but does
> not tell us what is so good about the writings that he cites. Except for
> Macherey, who has turned Foucauldian in his later work, the other
> Althusserians repudiate Foucault as relativist and defend the early
> scientific project which Althusser himself repudiated later on.
> Philip Goldstein
This isn't supposed to apply to Montag is it? Montag's reading of Foucault
is generous and critical, doesn't repudiate Foucault as a relativist, and
his reading of Althusser is considerable more nuanced. His recent book on
Althusser made me rethink a number of things about him, not least the light
the posthumous publications shed on the books published in his life. It's
highly recommended.
Stuart