Hi Ali,
Have you found the transcript of the Zizek talk where he reads and critiques Foucault's work on Iranian revolution as an inversion of the Kantian concept of 'enthusiasm'? I don't know if it has been published elsewhere as finished work yet?
http://www.cinestatic.com/different_maps/2006_06_01_different_maps.asp
"In his Iran writings, key Foucauldian term is enthusiasm, which he takes from Kant writings on French Revolution, but turns around - original Kant idea was that political enthusiasm is property not of empirical event itself, but rather of sublme image of event - so that true French Revolution meant for him hopes aroused by French Revolution in gaze of observers."
"In any case, though - in his Iranian revolution writings, Foucault inverts Kant, he says that enthusiasm is totally contained within empirical situation, it has nothing to do with sublime image, is even opposed to this, to cold gaze of observers who Foucault claims cannot understand it at all, he says, "the man in revolt is ultimately inexplicable.""
"But this is not all - Foucault then goes to third position, where he withdraws even further. Now he claims that the enthusiasm driving the pure event in the first place was driven by reactionary factor - anti-feminism, chauvinism, xenophobic nationalism, anti-semitism, and so on - with his conclusion here basically that you need all of this historical shit in order to sustain enthusiasm, it is ultimately necessary."
"So you the see the logic here - three withdrawals. First, Foucault claims is event is absolutely new, and that whatever reactionary aspect it might seem to have belongs entirely to outside subjective perceptions. Then he says, in fact, split between new aspect and reactionary aspect inherent in event itself, but that the pure event comes first. Then, he withdraws even further, and says that actually it was reactionary aspect that came first, which generated event in the first place."
I found this useful for some initial thinking for my dissertation that develops a post-Kantian conception of enthusiasm in subcultural scenes (more in terms of affect, etc. and not in terms of spirituality at all) and its commodification/capture by the cultural industries that service scenes.
(Zizek's critique suffers from an inability to grasp the actual or virtual multiplicity of events, but that is another issue...)
Ciao,
Glen.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:29 PM
Subject: [Foucault-L] Foucault, spirituality and Revolution
Have you found the transcript of the Zizek talk where he reads and critiques Foucault's work on Iranian revolution as an inversion of the Kantian concept of 'enthusiasm'? I don't know if it has been published elsewhere as finished work yet?
http://www.cinestatic.com/different_maps/2006_06_01_different_maps.asp
"In his Iran writings, key Foucauldian term is enthusiasm, which he takes from Kant writings on French Revolution, but turns around - original Kant idea was that political enthusiasm is property not of empirical event itself, but rather of sublme image of event - so that true French Revolution meant for him hopes aroused by French Revolution in gaze of observers."
"In any case, though - in his Iranian revolution writings, Foucault inverts Kant, he says that enthusiasm is totally contained within empirical situation, it has nothing to do with sublime image, is even opposed to this, to cold gaze of observers who Foucault claims cannot understand it at all, he says, "the man in revolt is ultimately inexplicable.""
"But this is not all - Foucault then goes to third position, where he withdraws even further. Now he claims that the enthusiasm driving the pure event in the first place was driven by reactionary factor - anti-feminism, chauvinism, xenophobic nationalism, anti-semitism, and so on - with his conclusion here basically that you need all of this historical shit in order to sustain enthusiasm, it is ultimately necessary."
"So you the see the logic here - three withdrawals. First, Foucault claims is event is absolutely new, and that whatever reactionary aspect it might seem to have belongs entirely to outside subjective perceptions. Then he says, in fact, split between new aspect and reactionary aspect inherent in event itself, but that the pure event comes first. Then, he withdraws even further, and says that actually it was reactionary aspect that came first, which generated event in the first place."
I found this useful for some initial thinking for my dissertation that develops a post-Kantian conception of enthusiasm in subcultural scenes (more in terms of affect, etc. and not in terms of spirituality at all) and its commodification/capture by the cultural industries that service scenes.
(Zizek's critique suffers from an inability to grasp the actual or virtual multiplicity of events, but that is another issue...)
Ciao,
Glen.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:29 PM
Subject: [Foucault-L] Foucault, spirituality and Revolution
Dear Listers,
I am currently studying the relation between the notions of
"spirituality" and "revolution" in Foucault. In this
context I would be grateful if someone on the list could refer to good
secondary material on the topic. I assume that primary resources on the subject
are well known.
Ali
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list