File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_1998/foucault.9809, message 27


Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 11:06:48 -0600
From: Wynship Hillier <whi-AT-wenet.net>
Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market


Thanks.  I appreciate the reply from someone else who keeps feet in both worlds.  Not many do.

Seismologists can't impact earthquakes, but that is an anomaly.  I'm not ever sure if it is entirely true.  Having lived
in California, I remember talk about setting off bombs along fault lines in order to release pressure in a more
controlled way, much like controlled burns of forested area.  And, of course, an as-yet-not-entirely-attained goal of
seismology has been to predict earthquakes, presumably in order for everyone to avoid injury from them.  Following
Heidegger, philosophy is not a science, but I still feel the point of Marx's last thesis on F.: "Philosophy has, for the
most part, only described the world.  The point, however, is to change it." (paraphrase)

I'm surprised to hear an MBA student saying that economists do not influence the market.  An economist in an
oligopolistic firm (a firm having market power) does indeed influence the market, insofar as their recommendations
influence the firm which has market power.  And tell me that Alan Greenspan doesn't influence the market.  What do they
teach you MBA students, anyway? :-)  They taught us economic engineers how to apply economic concepts and exploit any
kind of economic situation.  Whether those actions influence the market is simply a matter of how big you are in
relation to the market in question.

I don't think you've missed my point.  That philosophy concerns reflection and not action is the problem.  All of the
french post-marxist philosophy, telling us that the real revolution occurs in literature, seems like a rationalization
of failure sometimes, like everyone gave up after '68.  I am nostalgic for the times when political integrity meant more
than using non-sexist language, publishing clever criticism, and going to protests.  Speaking of Foucault's specific
intellectual, he did in fact say that this would be the political position par excellance, and that is why I am
astonished that nobody is playing this role.  Langdon Winner, Andrew Feenberg, Donna Haraway, even Jurgen Habermas, have
all written similar things, everyone agrees with them, and nobody is doing it.  CPSR is nothing but a bunch of
protesters with day jobs in the computer industry.  Their political tactics are no different than Greenpeace or LAG or
the SDA, and are about as ineffective.  It annoys me.  Book after book is published on how capitalism or culture
instantiates itself through science and technology, but science and technology take no notice, and no-one tries to do
science or technology any differently.  There is an air of resignation about these books.  The left is split between
negativity and criticism on one hand -- which can be crudely characterized as knowledge without action -- and a sort of
mindless activity on the other, consisting of bad rhetoric and playing for media attention -- action without knowledge.
Computers are "bad" (except for the Internet), social service is "good".  Some scientists are leftists, but they do
science no differentlyfor it. Some leftists see how politics and science are intertwined, but they don't do science.
You're either in the science game, and you blind yourself to the political aspect of your work, or your outside the
science game, and you are powerless.

Wynship



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005