File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0309, message 3


From: rodrigoguim-AT-riseup.net
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 06:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Chomsky on Foucault, Agamben and Negri




Here is an excerpt from the Chomsky/Foucault dialogue:

http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/foucault/foucault.chomsky.html




>
> The clash between Chomsky's thought and that of Foucault comes about
> because of Chomsky's conception of power as something one either "has" or
> "does not have".  Coupled with Chomsky's belief in a universal, essential
> "human nature" (exemplified by his linguistic theories), this conception
> of power is one that Foucault characterizes as the "theory of
> sovereignty".  In this view, power is repression, never productive.  That
> is why Chomsky thinks all Foucault wants to do is to "undermine power".
> From his conception of power as repression, and liberation as an alignment
> with one's essence, Chomsky fails to understand that Foucault is
> responding in resistance to a certain metaphysical culture, and the social
> practices that abide by it, producing subjectivities and forms of
> domination.  His task is not to "free the human", even though he is
> certainly preoccupied with forms of justice and liberatory practices.
> Chomsky's claim that Foucault reinforces power could not be more naïve,
> since one of Foucault's greatest teachings is that, yes, we will always
> reproduce forms of oppression, no matter how much resistance we think we
> put into any action.  His language speaks back to a certain history, and
> as history is not one-dimensional, so should resistance also be multiple.
> To "speak simply", for the "ordinary person", is to regard knwoledge as
> the origin of all action, a critique made by Nietzsche to Western culture
> and one which Foucault most brilliantly took on.
>
> A good reading would be a debate that happened between Chomsky and
> Foucault, and if I can find it somewhere I will post it soon.
>
> Rodrigo
>
>
>
>
>
>> I am curious what others of you think of Chomsky's raillery against
>> Foucault
>> and intellectualism, here. Compared with Deleuze, Derrida and even some
>> of
>> the
>> Frankfurt School writings (hell, even Sartre), Foucault is more
>> readable,
>> as
>> far as I can tell (have only read a few of his works, though). The
>> mention
>> of
>> Foucault's utilization of the 'old-school' French method of discourse
>> has
>> been
>> brought up in many critiques (whether they be positive or negative), but
>> I
>> do
>> not see that a comprehensive understanding of it is required to navigate
>> some
>> of his more major works ("Madness & Civilization" and "Discipline &
>> Punish",
>> for example). Before I knew much of the author, I had read the first,
>> and
>> while I certainly had trouble at points, and while there were definitely
>> areas
>> which remain out of my field of comprehension, I drew much from that
>> work
>> during
>> that reading. Beyond this, though, I prize a certain sort of esotericism
>> in
>> works such as these, and see their inaccessibility as something to be
>> heralded,
>> not denounced. Television, propaganda, marketing; these all appeal to
>> the
>> "masses", strive towards the exoteric simplicity that Chomsky insists is
>> inherent
>> in everything. If the "carpenter next door" cannot read Foucault because
>> of
>> his style of discourse or his "big words", as Chomsy challenges, I am
>> quite sure
>> that if this method were abolished and the big words were shrunken down
>> (if
>> the topic were actually susceptible to simplification), the carpenter
>> would
>> probably still not care to take up the book - not that this has anything
>> to do
>> with carpenters. In other words, I think Chomsky, here, tries, and
>> fails,
>> to
>> situate the failure of the appeal of content onto that of form. I doubt
>> that it
>> is Hegel's notorious density that shuns a more broad audience, but the
>> subject
>> matter itself is of no concern to most people. Are we, then, to devote
>> ourselves merely to those topics which all are interested in? Shall
>> philosophy/theory
>> try to integrate, as does Zizek, more pop culture, to help "build an
>> audience"? I thank Foucault and Derrida and Adorno and Woolf and Kafka
>> for
>> their
>> iridescent impenetrability: it helps keep out those who would not care
>> to
>> enter in
>> the first place - it has nothing to do with "power", but a sense of
>> pride
>> in
>> knowledge, despite the artillery fire that this concept has come under
>> in
>> recent years. Intellectualism certainly has its faults, but its
>> esotericism is not
>> one of them. For those like Chomsky, who search for the simplification
>> of
>> what
>> is such a mess of gordian knots, I recommend the box of fortune cookies
>> in
>> Aisle D at the local SUPERmarket.
>>
>>        phil.
>>
>> "Connection is not a matter of unbroken transition but a matter of
>> sudden
>> change." -Adorno
>>
>> In a message dated 8/26/2003 10:17:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>> A: Foucault is an interesting case because I'm sure he
>>> honestly wants to undermine power but I think with his
>>> writings he reinforced it. The only way to understand
>>> Foucault is if you are a graduate student or you are
>>> attending a university and have been trained in this
>>> particular style of discourse. That's a way of
>>> guaranteeing, it might not be his purpose, but that's
>>> a way of guaranteeing that intellectuals will have
>>> power, prestige and influence. If something can be
>>> said simply say it simply, so that the carpenter next
>>> door can understand you. Anything that is at all well
>>> understood about human affairs is pretty simple. I
>>> find Foucault really interesting but I remain
>>> skeptical of his mode of expression. I find that I
>>> have to decode him, and after I have decoded him maybe
>>> I'm missing something. I don't get the significance of
>>> what I am left with. I have never effectively
>>> understood what he was talking about. I mean, when I
>>> try to take the big words he uses and put them into
>>> words that I can understand and use, it is difficult
>>> for me to accomplish this task It all strikes me as
>>> overly convoluted and very abstract. But â what
>>> happens when you try to skip down to real cases? The
>>> trouble with Foucault and with this certain kind of
>>> theory arises when it tries to come down to earth.
>>> Really, nobody was able to explain to me the
>>> importance of his work...
>>
>>
>> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
>> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>>
>> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>
>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> multipart/alternative
>>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>   text/html
>> ---
>>
>
>


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005