"Chomsky: Foucault is an interesting case because I'm sure he honestly wants to undermine power but I think with his writings he reinforced it. The only way to understand Foucault is if you are a graduate student or you are attending a university and have been trained in this particular style of discourse. That's a way of guaranteeing, it might not be his purpose, but that's a way of guaranteeing that intellectuals will have power, prestige and influence. If something can be said simply say it simply, so that the carpenter next door can understand you. Anything that is at all well understood about human affairs is pretty simple. I find Foucault really interesting but I remain skeptical of his mode of expression. I find that I have to decode him, and after I have decoded him maybe I'm missing something. I don't get the significance of what I am left with. I have never effectively understood what he was talking about. I mean, when I try to take the big words he uses and put them into words that I can understand and use, it is difficult for me to accomplish this task It all strikes me as overly convoluted and very abstract. But -what happens when you try to skip down to real cases? The trouble with Foucault and with this certain kind of theory arises when it tries to come down to earth. Really, nobody was able to explain to me the importance of his work..."
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4107>
You certainly see this on the "Manufacturing Consent" DVD Special Features section. Foucault prattles on on on on while Chomsky strains to make sense of what he's saying. I've known more than a few lefties who find value in Foucault's work, and like Chomsky I don't understand it. Are there any Foucault fanciers here who might give it a go?
DP
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030901/771b09cc/attachment.htm>