Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 7:48 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: model of war
>
>
> [A good time, I think, for the periodic posting of Foucault's
> homily on the
> model of war.]
>
> from REMARKS ON MARX, Michel Foucault interviewed by Duccio Trombadori
> [Semiotext(e), 1991]
>
> Duccio Trombadori: But still apropos of polemics, you have also stated
> clearly that you don't like and will not accept those kinds of arguments
> "which mimic war and parody justice." Could you explain to me more clearly
> what you meant by saying this?
>
> Michel Foucault: What is tiresome in ideological arguments is that one is
> necessarily swept away by the "model of war." That is to say that when you
> find yourself facing someone with ideas different from your own, you are
> always led to identify that person as an enemy (of your class, your
> society, etc.). And we know that it is necessary to wage combat
> against the
> enemy until triumphing over him. This grand theme of ideological struggle
> has really disturbed me. First of all because the theoretical coordinates
> of each of us are often, no, always, confused and fluctuating, especially
> if they are observed in their genesis.
>
> Furthermore: might not this "struggle" that one tries to wage against the
> "enemy" only be a way of making a petty dispute without much importance
> seem more serious than it really is? I mean, don't certain intellectuals
> hope to lend themselves greater political weight with their "ideological
> struggle" than they really have? A book is consumed very quickly,
> you know.
> An article, well.... What is more serious: acting out a struggle against
> the "enemy," or investigating, together or perhaps divergently, the
> important problems that are posed? And then I'll tell you: I find this
> "model of war" not only a bit ridiculous but also rather
> dangerous. Because
> by virtue of saying or thinking "I'm fighting against the enemy," if one
> day you found yourself in a position of strength, and in a situation of
> real war, in front of this blasted "enemy," wouldn't you actually
> treat him
> as one? Taking that route leads directly to oppression, no matter
> who takes
> it: that's the real danger. I understand how pleasing it can be for some
> intellectuals to try to be taken seriously by a party or a society by
> acting out a "war" against an ideological adversary: but that is
> disturbing
> above all because of what it could provoke. Wouldn't it be much better
> instead to think that those with whom you disagree are perhaps
> mistaken; or
> perhaps that you haven't understood what they intended to say?
>