Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:33:08 -0500 From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com> Subject: Re: more on nasty cyber-nazis Stephen D'Arcy wrote: >First, it is not clear to me that it is "the assembled Foucaultians" >that are having a problem here; surely it is the assembled >spokespeople for the Anti-postmodernism Industry that are having a >problem, as they wait in vain for a set of instructions for >anti-fascist action to issue from Foucault's book on the history of >punishment in modern France. This is not what I asked. I asked how a reading of Foucault influences or deepens one's analysis of fascism; how does this get transformed into "a set of instructions"? Every one of these stubborn misreadings convinces me I'm onto something - some, dare I say, constitutive exclusion or evasion. >Second, one of the well-known methods of government used by the German >state in the Nazi era was to have children monitor their parents and >inform the authorities about any anti-Nazi (etc.) activities they >might be engaged in. Are you really prepared to suggest that Hobbes >better prepares us to analyze the power dynamics of this situation >than does Foucault? If you believe that, please try and present an >argument of some kind, because I can tell you that very few people (on >or off this list) will find that plausible, assuming they have read >and understood both Hobbes and Foucault. Where'd Hobbes come from? Who said anything about him? >Telling us that the bourgeoisie is responsible for fascism is helpful, >arguably, as a starting point. But it doesn't tell us anything about >how fascism works. Imagine Marx saying that exploitation is what the >bourgeoisie does to secure profits, and then repudiating the task of >meticulously analyzing its complex dynamics, and the subtle, often >hidden, forms of coercion and regulation that make it function as a >system! Marx would have regarded that as shirking his intellectual >AND political responsiblity. Of course. Don't confuse a two-paragraph on-the-fly internet posting with a real historical/social/political analysis of the origins and practices of fascism. >That is also what he would have thought about Marxists who today >regard it is their task to "smash" other theoretical perspectives >without trying to learn from them. Marxists who are too busy trying >to smash "postmodernism" to learn from Foucault are like the 19th >century socialists who were too busy trying to smash political economy >(Smith and Ricardo) to take on the difficult task of critically >appropriating the insights which that theoretical tradition had >produced. Thankfully, Marx was willing to make the effort. I've noticed a tendency among postmodernists, who of course shun the collective label, to react to criticsm, or in this case questioning, with a rather overblown emotional outburst. If Foucault can ask what it was in Marx's texts that led to the gulag, why can't I ask what a Foucaultian reading of Naziism might look like? It's not as if I asked what was in Nietzsche's texts that led to the concentration camp, is it? Doug
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005