[lbo-talk] Why Richard Hofstadter Is Still Worth Reading butNotfor the Reasons the Critics Have in Mind

Dennis Claxton ddclaxton at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 17 16:27:08 PDT 2006


Carroll wrote:


>And not just "in the professional association," since those battles were
>linked to and in turn overflowed into political battles _not_ just 'on
>campus' but in the wider communities, and a good deal of left political
>activity in the intervening 35 +/- years had its origin in those merely
>academic battles in a cream bowl.

I wouldn't want to take away from what happened on campus. But I lean more towards Chomsky's take that movements make it to campus later rather than sooner. I was also mostly responding to the good intellectual/bad intellectual lines being drawn based on anecdotal war stories. And war stories is a fitting description of an account relating "intellectual and political combat". Seems a good time to recirculate something (below) from Foucault that I first saw when it was posted here.


>I've enjoyed reading most of Dennis Claxton's posts, but this is silly.

It's nice to be noticed. ; )

>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?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list