what do you mean sabotaged?
________________________________________
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arianna [ari@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
it was sabotaged by academics peut etre...
Edward Comstock wrote:
> I agree with this (and I'd love to know more about how you think Rabinow
> misinterprets Foucault on the "death of Man"). I really don't understand
> how OT has fallen out of favor--if indeed this is what has happened--and
> it makes me suspect that people simply find it too difficult to read?
> Although I do understand that Foucault, and others, moved on from the
> project of describing discourse because this poses obvious restrictions on
> "the project," I still think the archaeology has obvious ramifications to
> those who work within the scholarly discourses. And while it's probably
> true that OT reflects insights that are not uniquely "Foucault,"
> especially perhaps Canguilhem, I also can't imagine understanding what the
> rest of his works are doing without it.
>
> In any event, I read Foucault on the death of Man as presaging many of
> those events and techniques that we now label "post-modern" in culture and
> politics, and as a kind of inevitability rather than a completed process.
> _____________________
> Ed Comstock
> College Writing Program
> Department of Literature
> American University
> ------------------------------------
> The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
> brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
> intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
> also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
> people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
>
>
>
> "Vemuri, Chathan V" <chathan-vemuri@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/01/2008 04:29 AM
> Please respond to
> Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> "foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Some people are of the opinion that The Order of Things is an outdated
> work with a misleading premise of the death of man via language that they
> discard in favor of his other writings on prisons and sexuality, etc. I
> think The Order of Things still has much relevance for modern
> understanding of the social sciences and that the ending is far too
> misunderstood, especially by Ian Hacking (who pushes a Kantian
> interpretation of Foucault). To me, it seems his proclamation of the
> "death of Man" is not so much a proclamation that man has already died but
> a future warning or hypothesis that our current notion of Man as a
> Cartesian subject which originated in the 17th century or so is a recent
> invention that will have its end eventually like all other meta concepts.
> Yet many view this as Foucault already proclaiming that man has already
> disappeared via the configuration of language, and that this prediction is
> miscast (notably Foucault interpreters such as Rabinow and even Hacking)
> t!
> hus the reason why I think this book has been downplayed in favor of
> Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality and other works (though those
> are my favorites). I was wondering what you guys thought about the
> relevance of The Order of Things and your interpretation of his prediction
> at the end. I feel the work is very much essential to understanding the
> general logic behind Foucault's work, as well as The Archaeology of
> Knowledge, thus why I recommended it to someone who was beginning to read
> Foucault for the first time.
>
> I would love to hear from you guys as soon as possible.
>
> Chathan Vemuri
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
________________________________________
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arianna [ari@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
it was sabotaged by academics peut etre...
Edward Comstock wrote:
> I agree with this (and I'd love to know more about how you think Rabinow
> misinterprets Foucault on the "death of Man"). I really don't understand
> how OT has fallen out of favor--if indeed this is what has happened--and
> it makes me suspect that people simply find it too difficult to read?
> Although I do understand that Foucault, and others, moved on from the
> project of describing discourse because this poses obvious restrictions on
> "the project," I still think the archaeology has obvious ramifications to
> those who work within the scholarly discourses. And while it's probably
> true that OT reflects insights that are not uniquely "Foucault,"
> especially perhaps Canguilhem, I also can't imagine understanding what the
> rest of his works are doing without it.
>
> In any event, I read Foucault on the death of Man as presaging many of
> those events and techniques that we now label "post-modern" in culture and
> politics, and as a kind of inevitability rather than a completed process.
> _____________________
> Ed Comstock
> College Writing Program
> Department of Literature
> American University
> ------------------------------------
> The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
> brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
> intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
> also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
> people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
>
>
>
> "Vemuri, Chathan V" <chathan-vemuri@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/01/2008 04:29 AM
> Please respond to
> Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> "foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Some people are of the opinion that The Order of Things is an outdated
> work with a misleading premise of the death of man via language that they
> discard in favor of his other writings on prisons and sexuality, etc. I
> think The Order of Things still has much relevance for modern
> understanding of the social sciences and that the ending is far too
> misunderstood, especially by Ian Hacking (who pushes a Kantian
> interpretation of Foucault). To me, it seems his proclamation of the
> "death of Man" is not so much a proclamation that man has already died but
> a future warning or hypothesis that our current notion of Man as a
> Cartesian subject which originated in the 17th century or so is a recent
> invention that will have its end eventually like all other meta concepts.
> Yet many view this as Foucault already proclaiming that man has already
> disappeared via the configuration of language, and that this prediction is
> miscast (notably Foucault interpreters such as Rabinow and even Hacking)
> t!
> hus the reason why I think this book has been downplayed in favor of
> Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality and other works (though those
> are my favorites). I was wondering what you guys thought about the
> relevance of The Order of Things and your interpretation of his prediction
> at the end. I feel the work is very much essential to understanding the
> general logic behind Foucault's work, as well as The Archaeology of
> Knowledge, thus why I recommended it to someone who was beginning to read
> Foucault for the first time.
>
> I would love to hear from you guys as soon as possible.
>
> Chathan Vemuri
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list