On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:18:37 -0500 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
writes:
>Rob wrote:
>
>Given his own practice, Foucault fails to justify his 'theoretical'
>call to
>dispense with the science/ideology distinction.
>
>Without the science/ideology distinction, what's the reason to prefer,
>say,
>Gabriel Kolko's or Noam Chomsky's account to Henry Kissinger's or
>Robert
>McNamara's with regard to the Vietnam War? Because the reader thinks
>the
>Vietnam War was morally wrong? What makes it morally wrong?
There would be no reason at all. And since people like Kissinger or McNamara have much power on their side than do people like Kolko or Chomsky why shouldn't the perspectives of a Kissinger or a McNamara prevail over those of a Chomsky or a McNamara? I don't think it is all that surprising that Chomsky is one of the staunchest critics of pomo around. He realizes whats at stake if we abandon the distinction between science and ideology or truth and ideology since it is radicals that are going to inevitably suffer the consequences because the ruling elites have the means to "privelege" their perpsectives over those of anyone else.
> Because
>the
>reader thinks the Vietnam War was a part of a long history of
>imperialism?
>What makes the reader think there is such a thing as imperialism?
>According to Foucault's criteria, should we think of Kissinger's story
>as
>an ideology that is true, as Angela asserts, to which we can say
>neither
>yes nor no?
>
>Without the science/ideology distinction, why Marx rather than Smith,
>Weber, Keynes, nay, even Ayn Rand?
There would be no reason at all except for one's personal subjective preference.
Jim F.
>
>Yoshie
>
>
___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.