> 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?
> ___________________________________
Obviously, Foucault was one postmodernist who never ran up against some "enemy" neo-fascists in an alley late at night.
It's funny, political violence has a quick way of dealing with political relativism.
Chuck0