Hello Everyone,
An interesting discussion. I only want to add that there is probably something to be said for preserving the idea that the kinds of work that make use of Foucault can and, dare I say, should cover a very broad range but with varying degrees of cost and effectiveness. On the one hand there is the 'toolbox' approach suggested by Foucault himself -- available to anyone who finds something useful in it, scholar or not. If this is 'cherry picking', I don't see much problem in it. Foucault once claimed (sorry, the reference escapes me) that he used Nietzsche against Nietzsche and understood this to be a very Nietzschean thing to do. I understand Foucault to always have been more interested in the possible critical effects produced by this or that reading of a text than in adhering to some notion of objectivity or orthodox fidelity. He often took what he could use from a writer while completely ignoring other aspects. His readings of Plato and Descartes come to mind in this regard. On the other hand I think there is a lot of work yet to be done (but never definitively completed) that would involve reading "all of Foucault" in a careful, comprehensive, and scholarly manner as Fouad suggests. Somewhere between these two I think we should be able to discuss various divergent readings of Foucault that are more or less provocative, effective, careful, interesting, etc. without having in any way to appeal a 'true' or 'objective' Foucault.
Trent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Fouad Kalouche wrote:
An interesting discussion. I only want to add that there is probably something to be said for preserving the idea that the kinds of work that make use of Foucault can and, dare I say, should cover a very broad range but with varying degrees of cost and effectiveness. On the one hand there is the 'toolbox' approach suggested by Foucault himself -- available to anyone who finds something useful in it, scholar or not. If this is 'cherry picking', I don't see much problem in it. Foucault once claimed (sorry, the reference escapes me) that he used Nietzsche against Nietzsche and understood this to be a very Nietzschean thing to do. I understand Foucault to always have been more interested in the possible critical effects produced by this or that reading of a text than in adhering to some notion of objectivity or orthodox fidelity. He often took what he could use from a writer while completely ignoring other aspects. His readings of Plato and Descartes come to mind in this regard. On the other hand I think there is a lot of work yet to be done (but never definitively completed) that would involve reading "all of Foucault" in a careful, comprehensive, and scholarly manner as Fouad suggests. Somewhere between these two I think we should be able to discuss various divergent readings of Foucault that are more or less provocative, effective, careful, interesting, etc. without having in any way to appeal a 'true' or 'objective' Foucault.
Trent
On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Fouad Kalouche wrote:
In dialogue with Kevin, Timothy and others,
An academic approach to the study of Foucault requires a comprehensive (and not a selective) knowledge of the corpus of F's works. That does not mean that the more one reads of Foucault, one would know or reveal the "truth" about Foucault (and his texts); but this does mean that the practice of reading Foucault ensures some kind of familiarity and proximity that will contribute to a 'fidelity' in one's interpretation. Foucault's works has not been collected in such a way yet that the "corpus" is available to everyone--this is still in process and the courses are part and parcel of this endeavor. It does not matter that commercial or economic interests are at play--they always are; what matters is that we do not have yet for Foucault the equivalent of the Colli and Montinari edition of Nietzsche's complete works (an endeavor that Foucualt and Deleuze were invovled in as general editors of the French Gallimard edition). Many scholars are cherry-picking, nowadays, and claiming to represent Foucault, without accounting for the differences/similarities across texts along with the contexts.
I just wanted to reiterate that any respectable scholar would have to read "all of Foucault" (not in the sense of postivistic totality but in the sense that Blanchot uses in his call for reading "Tout Sade") if she/he is interested in studying Foucault. Timothy is right about the "publish or perish" academic context--laced with marketing startegies involved in constructing truth-values--but this criticism also applies to those writing (and selling) the "definitive" interpretations of elements of a corpus that has not been adequately delineated yet (although the Dits and Ecrits and the Courses have and are doing that). And once the text is more delineated, that does not mean that it is fixed; it would permit more broadly textually informed interpretations and readings. So, like Kevin says, there are not texts out there that will miraculously "reveal" some hidden Foucauldian truths; but the more texts inform our interpretations, the less we (interpreters) ourselves need to hide/reveal "Foucault's truth"!
Best,
Fouad Kalouche > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:08:26 -0800> From: kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Hermeneutics of the Subject and volumes 2 and 3 of the History of Sexuality> > Chetan,> > For a long time, the only text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and Punish," and from this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the kind of work it was carrying out.> > Somewhat later, I began to read all the texts available in English, and consequently formed a different understanding of what was taking place in the pages of DP. > > Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it a reading which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller, more detailed, more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what takes place in DP? I’m not sure. For me it simply represents a different understanding, one that in no way invalidates my original reading of the text, but which has certainly modified that reading.> > This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in DP following my reading of the Collège de France lectures that took place prior to its publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and which formed the background research for it.> > Does all this extra data bring me “closer” to the “real” Foucault as this is presented in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I’m not sure. But I don’t think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that text 14 years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of interpretation.> > So, I think I would respond to your question by saying that "Hermeneutic of the Subject" does not so much reveal the “true light” of UP and CS but, rather, opens up a different aperture (grid of intelligibility) through which these texts can be read and understood.> > There are only interpretations of interpretations...> > Regards,> Kevin.> > ____________________________________________________________> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages> Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.> Visit http:// www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!> > _______________________________________________> Foucault-L mailing list
_________________________________________________________________
Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list