File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_1996/96-10-21.153, message 164


Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 18:41:40 -0400
From: "Bayard G. Bell" <bbell01-AT-vader.cc.emory.edu>
Subject: Re: foucault-digest V2 #23


On Sun, 6 Oct 1996 15:12:03 -0400 Omar Nasim <umnasimo-AT-cc.UManitoba.CA>
wrote:

>Is Chomsky a post-modernist like Foucault???

If I recall from one of the interview which I believe to have come from
Kritzman's _Politics, Philosophy, Culture_, Foucault did not find a
great deal of intelligelibility in the distinction between the modern
and the postmodern.  I seem to recall him confessing that the term had
some coherence when applied in such a specific sense as Benjamin's
critique of Baudelaire, but he said that he dreaded a seminar on the
topic of modernism and postmodernism more generally with Habermas which
he claimed the Americans were apparently aspiring to arrange.  Why use
this term in this relation?  Why allow it to substitute for the
wonderfully explicit differences drawn between Foucault and Chomsky
during their interview?

-Bayard Bell

P.S. Please excuse me if I am pursuing rather bizarre subject matter,
but I just came back from a lecture by my lead advisor's mentor and have
suddenly realized that I am quite drunk from the refreshments offered
after the event.



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005