Subject: Re: Structural Marxism
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:19:48 +0100


Joe

Sounds interesting. I am intrigued by the claims that Foucault was a) a
structuralist; b) a Marxist; c) a structural Marxist... Initially at least i
would say he was none of these, but I am more than willing to enter into a
constructive dialogue over the list on these issues. Perhaps you would
elaborate - I'm sure you could.

The Bachelard-Canguilhem line is worth pursuing, though I think that their
shared heritage in Heidegger and Nietzsche is perhaps more interesting than
any direct influence per se. Bear in mind that Cang only saw Folie et
deraison at a very late stage, and that to my mind at least, almost all of
Foucault's conceptual approach is evident in that text... only that later he
more explicitly developed it as a approach/method.

Althusser is interesting, but I find him almost intolerable to read. I can't
help but think that Foucault's attacks on Marxism are almost always attacks
on _contemporary_ _French_ Marxism - Sartre and Althusser as key figures.
That said, there are considerable affinities with Lefebvre, and perhaps the
Frankfurt school. But these are not structural readings...

And as for discussing particular texts - all for it. I hope this can be in
some depth. The list is certainly useful for helping each other with
particular issues - references, what does this mean?, etc. (I've made use of
the list for this, and hopefully helped out in return), but it shouldn't
just be that. It should also be a forum for debate, discussion and
Auseinandersetzung.

Let me know what you have in mind.

Best wishes

Stuart