The Foucault quote is gibberish, or at least has nothing to do with reality. The empirical evidence is the radical caucuses in the American Hist Assn, MLA, etc. Anybody concerned about the content of the disciplines and the knotty problems involved in bridging the gap between activism and the academy should familarize themselves with this empirical evidence. The history of these things is full of complexity and many errors, but the value is incontestable.
Doug, hasn't the name of this thread outlived the subject?
Jesse Lemisch
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Claxton" <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:27 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Why Richard Hofstadter Is Still Worth Reading butNotfor the Reasons the Critics Have in Mind
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk