Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 11:39:59 -0800 From: soumitra-AT-ix.netcom.com (Soumitra Bose ) Subject: Re: An answer (was Re: work, women's status, etc ) You wrote: > >Are you saying that because certain words can't be translated with very >great fidelity the understanding of a particular theoretical framework is >bound to be flawed? I don't suppose you really mean that. > >I think Foucault's notion of power is based on a certain episteme of >knowledge gathering, he insists that the project of discussing a >philosophy of knowledge is much more useful that find the "true referant" >where power supposedly emanates from. You seem to be using hegemony in >several ways, could you clarify that? If you are saying that Foucault >talks about the hegemony of discourses(or are you using hegemony in the >Gramscian sense?) , that makes sense, but I am not >clear that your arguement does that, so, if you could clarify your >comments, I would get a cleareer understanding of what you are saying. > >Shashwati > > The word hegemony as a category itself is of course a gramscian construct . I was referring to that rather than the leninist construct of considering hegemony as a military construct only. Now the matter of knowledge when it is considered in the dichotomised sense of possessing/non-possessing breeds hegemony and is thus institutionalised. I wanted to point only this , not anything relating to the mode of discourse .... Be that as it may let us for a change get out of the text-book exercise of trying to fit a growing phenomenon into one or the other model and then trying to understand it through deja-vu modes of analysis .What I meanst was clear if we try to keep aside the models .
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005