It’s really interesting that this discussion has got to a point where we’re deliberating upon the question of whether or not Foucault was an ‘E/enlightenment’ thinker. I have to admit I never actually stated in my thesis that he was one. I also never actually stated that Foucault claimed himself to be a member of the ‘western enlightened boy’s club’, an expression which I used because I was writing to an internet discussion group. However, I now realize that it was far too flippant a choice of words and the cause for some misunderstandings to transpire---I’m sorry if I caused offense using those words. What I did do at one point (as I recall) was to cite ‘What is Enlightenment?’ and argue that Foucault was putting forward the case for seeing the project of Enlightenment as a process which inculcates a more self-reflexive attitude to one’s ‘self’, one that becomes evermore aware of i
tself as it enacts the social practice of ‘thinking’.
To someone who has a Foucaultian mindset, the suggestion that ‘thought’ is not dependent on Reason alone but is more an assemblage of social practices would not be any cause for consternation. I guess what’s problematic is any suggestion that Foucault’s work could be seen as an outcome of Enlightenment. I understand how indigestible that is. I did some serious mental swearing when I, at least, came to the conclusion that he was making a case for himself as such.
Maybe he wanted to wrest the history of ‘thought’ away from the iron hand of Reason, and the best way to do that was to make a case for himself as an Enlightenment thinker? Maybe he just wanted to be a dilettante? Maybe he wanted to own up to the power of his own texts before he died (which is the one I argued for earlier)? Maybe he made a bad choice in titling that article 'What is Enlightenment?' Maybe he's not an Enlightenment thinker? It’s a fascinating question.
--- "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
>isn't it recognized that the piece titled 'foucault, michel, 1926-' written
>by maurice florence does what others are suggesting 'what is enlightenment'
>does? the first edition of the 'cambridge companion to foucault' edited by
>gary gutting claims that the author this paper was foucault himself.
>foucault does claim to be at home in the critical tradition of kant, but
>this is not a claim that he is an enlightenment thinker. foucault goes to
>great lengths to 'critique' critique itself. i think claire has already
>outlined much of what distinguishes foucault's thought from that tradition.
>all i would add is that to appreciate the extent to which foucault was not
>an enlightenment thinker, one would need to search out the nietzschean
>element of his thinking. deleuze's book 'nietzsche and philosophy' is one
>example wherein a 'mood' can be created that facilitates this. foucault
>credits nietzsche, and heidegger, as impacting greatly on his ability to
>write, but he rarely cites them. pehaps in neitzsche we can discover the
>preliminary responses to these questions, or at least establish the mood
>required to engage with them. this is of little help, and i apologize for
>this. just some ramblings.
>
>cheers
>_______________________________________________
>Foucault-L mailing list
tself as it enacts the social practice of ‘thinking’.
To someone who has a Foucaultian mindset, the suggestion that ‘thought’ is not dependent on Reason alone but is more an assemblage of social practices would not be any cause for consternation. I guess what’s problematic is any suggestion that Foucault’s work could be seen as an outcome of Enlightenment. I understand how indigestible that is. I did some serious mental swearing when I, at least, came to the conclusion that he was making a case for himself as such.
Maybe he wanted to wrest the history of ‘thought’ away from the iron hand of Reason, and the best way to do that was to make a case for himself as an Enlightenment thinker? Maybe he just wanted to be a dilettante? Maybe he wanted to own up to the power of his own texts before he died (which is the one I argued for earlier)? Maybe he made a bad choice in titling that article 'What is Enlightenment?' Maybe he's not an Enlightenment thinker? It’s a fascinating question.
--- "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
>isn't it recognized that the piece titled 'foucault, michel, 1926-' written
>by maurice florence does what others are suggesting 'what is enlightenment'
>does? the first edition of the 'cambridge companion to foucault' edited by
>gary gutting claims that the author this paper was foucault himself.
>foucault does claim to be at home in the critical tradition of kant, but
>this is not a claim that he is an enlightenment thinker. foucault goes to
>great lengths to 'critique' critique itself. i think claire has already
>outlined much of what distinguishes foucault's thought from that tradition.
>all i would add is that to appreciate the extent to which foucault was not
>an enlightenment thinker, one would need to search out the nietzschean
>element of his thinking. deleuze's book 'nietzsche and philosophy' is one
>example wherein a 'mood' can be created that facilitates this. foucault
>credits nietzsche, and heidegger, as impacting greatly on his ability to
>write, but he rarely cites them. pehaps in neitzsche we can discover the
>preliminary responses to these questions, or at least establish the mood
>required to engage with them. this is of little help, and i apologize for
>this. just some ramblings.
>
>cheers
>_______________________________________________
>Foucault-L mailing list