I think I have missed the previous conversation therefore I did not
understand whose response is non productive. But the comment of "seemingly
adolescent/non -productivity" itself sounds very non productive.
Concerning the agent question, I had the same difficulty in both sociology
classes as well as in some canonical, monolithic philosophy classes that I
had to take. A little research on the history of the appearance of
structuralism as a reaction to conscious actor of the history may solve this
problem. Of course, this will require a thorough analysis of defects of
agent as the actor, which is something that most hegelians or post-
hegelians might not want to undertake. But if a figure of agent is
consistently searched from the judge's point of view- which lead to a case
of differend in Lyotardian sense I suppose - one may force itself to look at
what Foucault comprehends from "critical intellectual" in the battlefield.
Agent question is indeed very intricate and annoying and when it comes from
a dominant and institutionalized discourse, it is almost impossible to
respond in a comprehensive way.
be well
elif
On 4/18/07, emmanuel pehau <klossi_fr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
--
si vis pacem para bellum
understand whose response is non productive. But the comment of "seemingly
adolescent/non -productivity" itself sounds very non productive.
Concerning the agent question, I had the same difficulty in both sociology
classes as well as in some canonical, monolithic philosophy classes that I
had to take. A little research on the history of the appearance of
structuralism as a reaction to conscious actor of the history may solve this
problem. Of course, this will require a thorough analysis of defects of
agent as the actor, which is something that most hegelians or post-
hegelians might not want to undertake. But if a figure of agent is
consistently searched from the judge's point of view- which lead to a case
of differend in Lyotardian sense I suppose - one may force itself to look at
what Foucault comprehends from "critical intellectual" in the battlefield.
Agent question is indeed very intricate and annoying and when it comes from
a dominant and institutionalized discourse, it is almost impossible to
respond in a comprehensive way.
be well
elif
On 4/18/07, emmanuel pehau <klossi_fr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ron Griffin wrote : "Such a non productive, seemingly adolescent, response
to an honest question."
I was going to say something, but Felix Guattari said it a bajillion times
better in his response to a rather ethusiast reader who insisted that
Anti-Oedipus was instrumental in breaking psychoanalysis' charm :
"Pure illusion ! Psychoanalysts have remained impervious to it. It's only
normal : you might as well ask a butcher to cease to sell meat - or to
become a veggie ! - for theoretical reasons. And, as far as consumers as
concerned, one should not think that psychoanalysis does nothing for them !
It works ! It works splendidly ! People not only ask for it - they ask for
more. And they're right to pay so much for it since it works so well for
them. A little bit like a drug. Plus it goes whith a small but non
negligible social promotion. Anti-Oedipus was but a breath of fresh air. You
know what's funny? It's the watchword a cetain psychoanalytic association
emitted when the book was issued : "First, don't talk about it, il will go
away on itself." And you know what? That's just what happened. No, the most
tangible result of Anti-Oedipus was to severe leftism's ties to
psychoanalysis." (My bloody translation.)
Frankly, Ron, I want to know : don't you really see why Arianna might find
this question stupid or are you just trying to be clever? When you expect an
adapted response and get an automatic one in its place, don't you have a
tendency to find it stupid, however mature you may be - or are you just made
out from a completely different stuff than us petty intellectuals?
I, for one, fail to see how one can ask such a question ("Where are the
agents in Foucault's works?") out of "honesty"(except in the social - as
opposed to moral - acception of the term). I can't, for the sake of my life,
imagine how anyone go through any of Foucault's works (or at least any of
Foucault's foucaldian works - i.e post 1957) and accept this question as
relevant to the matter he's talking about and/or what he's trying to say
about it / make out of it. I can conceive it, but i can't imagine it.
But, hey, I won't cast them the first stone : going through a
philosophical work can be quite an experience; sometimes it means having
what, a minute ago, seemed to be the very foundations of any experience you
could make become suddenly irrelevant - or at least, appear out of place in
the one you're actually making; most of the times, it means having the truth
you held as self-evident become a little less so; at any rate, it demands
that you be prepared to run the risk of having your beliefs (sometimes the
beliefs you hold the dearest - most likely because they hold you up - so to
speak) being called into question; consequently, when a book is written to
put you through such a hard time (and we know Foucault conceived them as
such), it's likely to fall prey to "cautious" readings - which means
sometimes going through the experience with your senses selectively closed
(what one might call "one-sighted readings" if he's in a spirited), some
other time not opening the book at
all; that's precisely why i, for one, don't read so much - especially
"philosophical works" (whatever the field they take place in : i'm not
talking about works of philosophical "nature", rather about works of
philosophical effect).
Having say that, I hope you see where I'm coming from. Now, here is what
I'm aiming at : it seems to me that, to ask "where are in the agents in
Foucault's works", one mut be blinded by his faith - his "practical" faith I
hastily had i.e not necessarily the one he professes - not necessarily one
he can objectivate through a "purely intellectual" process; but whether the
faith is "genuine"/ "naive"/"innocent" (fides implicita) or not is
irrelevant to the present matter, because : either the bias is inconscious
and the pseudo-question it brings forth can't be called "honest" (NOR
malicious), either the blindfolds are willfully put on and that question
can't be called but dishonest.
(A question more whorthy to be called "honest" would have been : "why does
the question of the agent's place seem not to be compulsory for Foucault
when it is for me?" But to ask this question, you not only have to be honest
: you have to be lucid first.)
But, most of all, it's the epitomy of symbolic violence (it's a way of
denying one's very existence) - whether its perpetrators are as much victims
of it as their targets or not. Which is why I perfectly understand why one
would be so vehemently keen on dubbing this question "stupid".
End of rant.
And yes, English is my second language.
Emmanuel.
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions
!
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des
internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
--
si vis pacem para bellum