Many thanks to David McInerny and Stuart Elden for their thoughtful
responses to my curt complaint. I hope to engage in a productive dialog
about Althusser, Foucault, Montag, Balibar, Macherey, etc.
1. David McInerny wrote: "The one feature of all of the works following
Althusser that remain important now -- Montag, Macherey, Balibar, etc --
is that they not only develop the emphasis on conjunctural analysis and
the materialist theory of reading found throughout Althusser's work from
the early 1960s (as opposed to the formalistic and scientistic aspects)
but also apply those theories to Althusser's work itself." The
Althusserians do like to present themselves as a unified movement;
however, while Althusser, Balibar, and others preserve the
science/ideology opposition but in that modified form, in The Object of
Literature and Histoires du Dinosaure Macherey turns Foucauldian and
breaks radically with Althusser's theory of reading and conjunctural
analysis. Macherey adopts a notion of mythology which explains an
historical epoch but is not ideological nor scientific.
2. McInerny wrote "This approach contrasts with that of many other
readers, such as Resch, who emphasised the structuralist aspect and
attempted to construct a sociological system out of Althusser's work."
Montag may not share Resch's notion of this structuralist aspect, but,
according to my notes, Montag and Resch share a hostility to Foucault
and "other postmodern 'irrationalists' who reject, Resch says, "economic
determination and class struggle as explanatory principles" and show a
"hostility to Marxism ... whose significance can hardly be understated"
(Althusser, 5.) Stuart Elden says that Montag does not repudiate
Foucault as a relativist. Perhaps I misread his 1988 essay
"What is at Stake in the Debate on Postmodernism?" or maybe he changed
his mind since then. Also it may depend on which Foucault is involved.
Althusserians like Anthony Easthope appreciate the Foucault who puts
together knowledge and power, but they dismiss as functionalist the
Foucault who says that disciplinary techniques constitute the subject.
4. McInerny says, "I think it is fair to say that few influenced
by Althusser would consider themselves 'relativists', with the exception
perhaps of Steve Resnick and Richard Wolff." In literary circles, those
influenced by Althusser and liable to be charged with relativism by the
realists you mention also include Tony Bennett, Toby Miller, and, to an
extent, Catherine Belsey, and John Frow -- no minor groups. Of course,
they may not consider themselves relativists but the reason may be that
they don't
believe that anything goes, which is one meaning of relativism, but not
the only one.
5. Stuart Elden says that Montag's "recent book on Althusser made me
rethink a number of things about him." I certainly agree that this book
is valuable and insightful; what I would suggest is that it does not
tell the whole story. It explains Althusser's literary theory and
Macherey's elaboration of those views in his first big book. Catherine
Belsey, Terry Eagleton (whose views Montag notes), Tony Bennett, John
Frow and others also elaborate those views and like Macherey go on to
repudiate them on very different grounds, but Montag does not discuss
these developments. Like McInerny he implies that Althusserians are all
doing the same thing.
Phil Goldstein
David McInerney wrote:
>
> I have known Warren Montag since 1996, and I have read most of his work. I
> apologise for not being clearer about the various different sorts of
> 'Althusserians' in a previous post. There was a certain form of
> 'Althusserianism' that was around in the 1980s and early 1990s that was very
> sympathetic to critical realism and attempted to produce a sort of
> 'structuralist Marxism', perhaps the best example of this was Robert Paul
> Resch's book _Althusser and the Renewal of Marxist Social Theory_
> (University of California Press, 1992), but there were others too, including
> an essay on Althusser in Bhaskar's book on Rorty. Besides Montag and
> Macherey, Balibar's work can be seen as continuing to develop the most
> productive aspects of Althusser's work, and Althusser's book _Machiavelli
> and Us_ (Verso, 1999) is perhaps most representative of his later thought.
> Althusser rejected the scientistic formalism of the 'Theory of theoretical
> practice' as early as 1967, in the lectures later published as _Philosophy
> and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists_ (Verso, 1990).
>
> The one feature of all of the works following Althusser that remain
> important now -- Montag, Macherey, Balibar, etc -- is that they not only
> develop the emphasis on conjunctural analysis and the materialist theory of
> reading found throughout Althusser's work from the early 1960s (as opposed
> to the formalistic and scientistic aspects) but also apply those theories to
> Althusser's work itself, considering it as a material, contradictory
> discourse (like any other) and intervening to push to the fore the aspect
> that Balibar has called the 'Althusserianism of the conjuncture' at the
> expense of the 'Althusserianism of the structure'. Montag discusses this in
> his book better than I can in an email. This approach contrasts with that
> of many other readers, such as Resch, who emphasised the structuralist
> aspect and attempted to construct a sociological system out of Althusser's
> work.
>
> I think most people on this list might find something of value in the
> reading of Althusser put forward by Montag. On the other hand, the readings
> of Resch, Benton, etc would appeal more to those who still find something
> appealing in the project of Nicos Poulantzas, whose Weberian form of
> structuralist Marxism bears some superficial similarities to the spinozist
> Marxism of Althusser and has often been lumped together with it (and the
> work of others, such as Maurice Godelier and Claude Meillassoux) under the
> rubric of 'structural Marxism'. Few find Poulantzas's critical appreciation
> of Foucault's work on power (in _State, Power, Socialism_) of interest
> today, although it was influential for people such as Stuart Hall in the
> early 1980s.
>
> With regard to epistemology, I think it is fair to say that few influenced
> by Althusser would consider themselves 'relativists', with the exception
> perhaps of Steve Resnick and Richard Wolff (and those influenced by them),
> who are influenced by Rorty in this regard, and whose reading of Althusser
> is quite selective with regard to epistemology. Most would seem to be close
> to the position of Ian Hacking in _Representing and Intervening_, that is,
> rejecting the 'correspondence theory' but ontological realists (Hacking also
> approvingly cites _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, a very Althusserian
> guesture in my view). They also relation some notion of the dialectic of
> the imaginary and the real, in the thesis that the imaginary exists only in
> its effects. It's not entirely clear to me that Foucault's work doesn't
> imply a similar position, although he is wary of using the imaginary/real
> distinction for various good reasons. I'm interested to read what others
> think about the relations between Hacking's work and that of Foucault. It
> is correct to say though that Althusser's 'Theory of theoretical practice'
> represented a variant of Kantianism in epistemology and this is why he
> rejected it, and did so via a return to Lenin and a reappraisal of Hegel's
> critique of Kant in the late 1960s.
>
> DM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Elden" <stuartelden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Foucault and capital
>
> > > 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
> >
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/x-vcard
---
responses to my curt complaint. I hope to engage in a productive dialog
about Althusser, Foucault, Montag, Balibar, Macherey, etc.
1. David McInerny wrote: "The one feature of all of the works following
Althusser that remain important now -- Montag, Macherey, Balibar, etc --
is that they not only develop the emphasis on conjunctural analysis and
the materialist theory of reading found throughout Althusser's work from
the early 1960s (as opposed to the formalistic and scientistic aspects)
but also apply those theories to Althusser's work itself." The
Althusserians do like to present themselves as a unified movement;
however, while Althusser, Balibar, and others preserve the
science/ideology opposition but in that modified form, in The Object of
Literature and Histoires du Dinosaure Macherey turns Foucauldian and
breaks radically with Althusser's theory of reading and conjunctural
analysis. Macherey adopts a notion of mythology which explains an
historical epoch but is not ideological nor scientific.
2. McInerny wrote "This approach contrasts with that of many other
readers, such as Resch, who emphasised the structuralist aspect and
attempted to construct a sociological system out of Althusser's work."
Montag may not share Resch's notion of this structuralist aspect, but,
according to my notes, Montag and Resch share a hostility to Foucault
and "other postmodern 'irrationalists' who reject, Resch says, "economic
determination and class struggle as explanatory principles" and show a
"hostility to Marxism ... whose significance can hardly be understated"
(Althusser, 5.) Stuart Elden says that Montag does not repudiate
Foucault as a relativist. Perhaps I misread his 1988 essay
"What is at Stake in the Debate on Postmodernism?" or maybe he changed
his mind since then. Also it may depend on which Foucault is involved.
Althusserians like Anthony Easthope appreciate the Foucault who puts
together knowledge and power, but they dismiss as functionalist the
Foucault who says that disciplinary techniques constitute the subject.
4. McInerny says, "I think it is fair to say that few influenced
by Althusser would consider themselves 'relativists', with the exception
perhaps of Steve Resnick and Richard Wolff." In literary circles, those
influenced by Althusser and liable to be charged with relativism by the
realists you mention also include Tony Bennett, Toby Miller, and, to an
extent, Catherine Belsey, and John Frow -- no minor groups. Of course,
they may not consider themselves relativists but the reason may be that
they don't
believe that anything goes, which is one meaning of relativism, but not
the only one.
5. Stuart Elden says that Montag's "recent book on Althusser made me
rethink a number of things about him." I certainly agree that this book
is valuable and insightful; what I would suggest is that it does not
tell the whole story. It explains Althusser's literary theory and
Macherey's elaboration of those views in his first big book. Catherine
Belsey, Terry Eagleton (whose views Montag notes), Tony Bennett, John
Frow and others also elaborate those views and like Macherey go on to
repudiate them on very different grounds, but Montag does not discuss
these developments. Like McInerny he implies that Althusserians are all
doing the same thing.
Phil Goldstein
David McInerney wrote:
>
> I have known Warren Montag since 1996, and I have read most of his work. I
> apologise for not being clearer about the various different sorts of
> 'Althusserians' in a previous post. There was a certain form of
> 'Althusserianism' that was around in the 1980s and early 1990s that was very
> sympathetic to critical realism and attempted to produce a sort of
> 'structuralist Marxism', perhaps the best example of this was Robert Paul
> Resch's book _Althusser and the Renewal of Marxist Social Theory_
> (University of California Press, 1992), but there were others too, including
> an essay on Althusser in Bhaskar's book on Rorty. Besides Montag and
> Macherey, Balibar's work can be seen as continuing to develop the most
> productive aspects of Althusser's work, and Althusser's book _Machiavelli
> and Us_ (Verso, 1999) is perhaps most representative of his later thought.
> Althusser rejected the scientistic formalism of the 'Theory of theoretical
> practice' as early as 1967, in the lectures later published as _Philosophy
> and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists_ (Verso, 1990).
>
> The one feature of all of the works following Althusser that remain
> important now -- Montag, Macherey, Balibar, etc -- is that they not only
> develop the emphasis on conjunctural analysis and the materialist theory of
> reading found throughout Althusser's work from the early 1960s (as opposed
> to the formalistic and scientistic aspects) but also apply those theories to
> Althusser's work itself, considering it as a material, contradictory
> discourse (like any other) and intervening to push to the fore the aspect
> that Balibar has called the 'Althusserianism of the conjuncture' at the
> expense of the 'Althusserianism of the structure'. Montag discusses this in
> his book better than I can in an email. This approach contrasts with that
> of many other readers, such as Resch, who emphasised the structuralist
> aspect and attempted to construct a sociological system out of Althusser's
> work.
>
> I think most people on this list might find something of value in the
> reading of Althusser put forward by Montag. On the other hand, the readings
> of Resch, Benton, etc would appeal more to those who still find something
> appealing in the project of Nicos Poulantzas, whose Weberian form of
> structuralist Marxism bears some superficial similarities to the spinozist
> Marxism of Althusser and has often been lumped together with it (and the
> work of others, such as Maurice Godelier and Claude Meillassoux) under the
> rubric of 'structural Marxism'. Few find Poulantzas's critical appreciation
> of Foucault's work on power (in _State, Power, Socialism_) of interest
> today, although it was influential for people such as Stuart Hall in the
> early 1980s.
>
> With regard to epistemology, I think it is fair to say that few influenced
> by Althusser would consider themselves 'relativists', with the exception
> perhaps of Steve Resnick and Richard Wolff (and those influenced by them),
> who are influenced by Rorty in this regard, and whose reading of Althusser
> is quite selective with regard to epistemology. Most would seem to be close
> to the position of Ian Hacking in _Representing and Intervening_, that is,
> rejecting the 'correspondence theory' but ontological realists (Hacking also
> approvingly cites _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, a very Althusserian
> guesture in my view). They also relation some notion of the dialectic of
> the imaginary and the real, in the thesis that the imaginary exists only in
> its effects. It's not entirely clear to me that Foucault's work doesn't
> imply a similar position, although he is wary of using the imaginary/real
> distinction for various good reasons. I'm interested to read what others
> think about the relations between Hacking's work and that of Foucault. It
> is correct to say though that Althusser's 'Theory of theoretical practice'
> represented a variant of Kantianism in epistemology and this is why he
> rejected it, and did so via a return to Lenin and a reappraisal of Hegel's
> critique of Kant in the late 1960s.
>
> DM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Elden" <stuartelden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Foucault and capital
>
> > > 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
> >
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/x-vcard
---