On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Arianna <ari@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> thank you for this thread. this debate can be had in many
> different registers, one of which is also Negri's 'constituent -
> constitutive' power lens. If any of you can take it anywhere
> else than a bleak: 'you can only be a revolutionary so long
> as you are ineffective', pls say so, it would help a lot.
Foucault wrote: ". . . I do not agree with those who would say, 'It is
useless to revolt, it will always be the same.' One does not dictate
to those who risk their lives in the face of power. Is it right to
rebel, or not? Let us leave this question open. It is a fact that
people rise up, and it is through this that a subjectivity (not that
of great men, but that of anyone) introduces itself into history and
gives it its life" ("Is It Useless to Revolt?" Le Monde, 11-12 May
1979, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p.
266). The way he kept the question of history open is more useful
than the philosophy of Afary and Anderson for whom there is nothing
other than liberal democracy (whose relations of power they fail to
criticize) on the horizon.
Yoshie
> thank you for this thread. this debate can be had in many
> different registers, one of which is also Negri's 'constituent -
> constitutive' power lens. If any of you can take it anywhere
> else than a bleak: 'you can only be a revolutionary so long
> as you are ineffective', pls say so, it would help a lot.
Foucault wrote: ". . . I do not agree with those who would say, 'It is
useless to revolt, it will always be the same.' One does not dictate
to those who risk their lives in the face of power. Is it right to
rebel, or not? Let us leave this question open. It is a fact that
people rise up, and it is through this that a subjectivity (not that
of great men, but that of anyone) introduces itself into history and
gives it its life" ("Is It Useless to Revolt?" Le Monde, 11-12 May
1979, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p.
266). The way he kept the question of history open is more useful
than the philosophy of Afary and Anderson for whom there is nothing
other than liberal democracy (whose relations of power they fail to
criticize) on the horizon.
Yoshie