>I'm at the office and do not have have immediate
>access to one of the many many many places where
>Foucault says that resistance to domination is
>inevitable, but when I get home or over the weekend I
>will provide you with a few. It's in D&P, for one, and
>an number of interviews. I am actually surprised that
>you are not familiar with this aspect of F's views.
Where in *this* interview is this claim? Because I'm not seeing it. So no need to get quotes from elsewhere. I ask b/c I tire of is the tendency for these convos to proceed in the absence of a discussion of the text. I've explained before why. It's not a dick swinging contest, it's because my practical political conversations has demonstrated that the conversations are a lot more productive when they are ground in what I've called a "transitional object" (drawing on Klein, Winnicot, and Hirshhorn)
Furthermore, you have a tendency to create straw out of the social constructionist position, light it on fire, and toast marshmallows. I saw that happening when you mentioned "stories". Bitch no like that sort of thing. And, while I'd love to get you and some fluffernutter in a room some day, it annoys me almost as much as it annoys me when Katha Pollit does it! ;p *ducking and running*
>As for Chomsky, I am happy to see him criticized, both
>for his political and his linguistic views. About the
>latter I am barely qualified to offer an opinion, but
>his statute is what I have indicated: he's either the
>starting point or the target of all modern linguistic
>theory. That's the judgment of the profession, not an
>idiosyncratic one of mine. If we talk more broadly
>about his views of human nature, I think he has the
>view that most scientists have, that it's a bundle of
>different potentials that can be differently realized
>in different circumstances.
My bad for attributing to you fanbuoydom. Sorrysorry.
>As for his political views and works, I although
>Chomsky is one of three people whose work radicalized
>me (the other two being Old Chuck and A.J. Langguth, a
>NY Times reporter who wrote a book about US torture
>programs in S.Am. in the 1960s and 70s), I'm hardly a
>groupie, and a comprehensive catalog of my criticism
>and reservations would be quite long. Short version:
>in his analyses C is a vulgar Marxist who doesn't
>acknowledge it, but whose work has the advantages and
>defects of vulgar Marxism. He overestimates the role
>of foreign policy in the political economy of the US
>ruling class and underestimates the domestic
>determinants of that policy. He also has naive
>rationalist belief that merely piling up facts and
>logical arguments should change people's minds. So I
>am hardly a naive Chomsky fan who defends the Master's
>words come what may.
I think Chomsky is great. I don't think Chomsky should be looked to for an answer to every single thing under the sun. E.g., I'm thinking I love Barbara Ehrenreich, but I'm thinking she's not someone I'd ask to come and speak about queer/transgender issues, nor would I expect she'd be particularly great at analyzing oh, I don't know, um. Wonkette's review of Katha Pollit's book. :) I worship the ground BE walks on, but down with pedastals, up with clay feet, I always say.
Someone pointed out that Zizek has pressure on him to perform. Likewise, the enormous fandom around Chomsky seems to make people think that he can speak to all issues. Another version of pressure to perform. My question was: why did anyone expect Chomsky to speak to Foucault, who's work Chomsky really didn't seem to understand. How can you get up there and then say that you can't sketch out a defense of your views of human nature. It may not be his bag, which is fine, but then why was he asked?
As for the facts thing, I really must, for Carrol's pleasure, do up a little overview of the work of Brian Fay on this issue. It's really quite good as road map for understanding the limitations of the humanist leftist approach he called "educative". It relies on the idea that you can educate people, he says. He grounds his critique in three points, one of which is interesting in so far as he points out that some research and theorists want to talk about how oppression systematically shapes the body such that it is resistant to enlightenment without techniques that address the body. It's actuallly old stuff not much discussed these days and, when it has been, it's in the work of folks who most people don't speak to -- e.g., Elizabeth Grosz.
PS to Carrol. I remember that convo, though I'd be surprised if CD said that dependence is always bad. CD is a person who just doesn't make absolutist statements like that.
There's a sale going on for supersize tubes of Desitin. Must be off.
Bimboisitcally
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org