For a compelling critique of Spivak on Foucault and Deleuze, see the following short essay:
Warren Montag, 'Can the Subaltern Speak and Other Transcendental Questions'
http://eserver.org/clogic/1-2/montag.html
On 10/10/2005, at 4:54 AM, Nathaniel Roberts wrote:
Warren Montag, 'Can the Subaltern Speak and Other Transcendental Questions'
http://eserver.org/clogic/1-2/montag.html
On 10/10/2005, at 4:54 AM, Nathaniel Roberts wrote:
On the theme of speaking for others, you might want to take a look at Gayatri Spivak's "Can the subaltern speak?" in which she pins this very charge on Foucualt and Deleuze. According to Spivak, they F and D have an overabundent faith in the ability of subalterns to speak for themselves and in this they (F&D) totally discount ideology as well as other more and less brute mechanisms by which subalterns are prevented from speaking for themselves (which are, indeed, continuous with what make them subaltern in the first place).
Hers is an excellent essay and repays careful study. I think, however, that the thought she attributes to Foucault does not accurately represent what he is all about (although it is certainly one possible way to read him --especially during a certain period). It may be more applicable to Deleuze, however (Spivak tends to run the two together in this essay, which I think reflects a period when F & D really were thinking along parallel lines).
On the topic of who speaks for whom, it would also be useful to read Paul Bove's essay (on Foucault vs. Edward Said), entitled "Intellectuals at War," in SubStance 9(4), 1983, pp. 36-55. This pertains to Foucault's idea of the specific intellectual (as he styles himself), who works within a very narrow range of concrete studies, and the "general" or "universal intellectual," (such as Sartre and Said) who pronounce on all topics.
-Nate
At 12:59 AM 10/9/2005, you wrote:
Rupert,
this is a very interesting question. I too read years ago that Foucault taught us this lesson, I have never found Foucault really saying as much himself. I share the intuition that it is right, and the clearest indication is certainly the GIP. However, I do find that Foucault is capable of speaking on behalf of others to some extent. Moreover, I'm not sure who those who speak on behalf of others realy are. I am certainly dubious about your example of the psychoanalyst: psychoanalysis is not about telling the patient the meaning of their experiences, but rather coaxing it out of them. While there may be more input from the psychoanalyst than the psychoanalyst believes there is, is their practice not at base supposed to be non-interventionist in a similar way to Foucault's? And might this be mitigated in both cases?
Mark
On 10/8/05, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello all,
I wanted to know what people thought of the conception that Foucault's politics is directed against speaking for others. We can see this in the psychoanalyst (among others) who "interprets" the truth of their patient, and in Foucualt's own political activities, the way in which testimonials were collected for the GIP being the best example. In Macey's biography of Foucault, Deleuze is reported to have said to Foucault "In my view, you were the first to teach us a basic lesson: speaking for others in shameful." I have not really been able to find anything more detailed than this as a theoretical position, what precisely he means by giving others a voice (without falling into very un-Foucauldian subjectivism, Carol Gilligan springs to mind) and how this can be related back to representative democracy.
Rupert
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list