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 ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005