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 >> --- >> > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005