File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_1995/f_Dec.95, message 2


From: Samuel Lawrence Binkley <sbinkley-AT-pipeline.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 14:31:40 -0500
Subject: response to GA's comments


 
 
>Gabriel Ashes comments on semiotics are very interesting for a critique of

>reductionist linguistic determinations (I recently read an essay by
Raymond 
>williams who made a marxist critique of Saussure as the bourgeois
linguist. 
> Williams' insistence on language as a process of social production seems 
>to open the door a little on an easy vulgar po-mo model that simply posits

>language as the as the overriding producer of subjectivities) GA's
comments 
>also shed some much needed light on the general topic of 
>post-structuralist/postmodernist stuff.  If anything, I think a discussion

>on any of these issues, and on Foucault in particular, must emphasize the 
>context in which the issues is being posed, that is, one's disciplinary 
>adversaries and general project.  Pomo lit-crit is of quite a different 
>sort than that of the social sciences, etc.    
>  
>post-structuralist/postmodernist is a sort of a misnomer, but it does 
>successfully mark out a site of confrontation.  I study in a place where 
>habermassianism is a very pervasive influence, and I constantly find
myself 
>on the same well travelled paths, carrying a "post modern" banner which
has 
>somehow been attatched to some aspect of my argumnent.  In any case, if 
>anything, Foucault is a good strategist, and I for one am just as 
>interested in hearing how list participants develop "foucauldian content" 
>out of their specific strategies and confrontations as I am in the 
>exigetical side.   
>  
>(I have studied Foucault with an analytic philosopher who taught it as a 
>pretty straight foreward historical sociology of knowledge and made polite

>excuses for his sloppier excesses).    
>  
>sam 

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005