File spoon-archives/third-world-women.archive/third-world-women_1996/96-06-05.103, message 2


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 . 


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005