>^^^^
>CB; Exactly my point. Foucault seems to me to distance himself consciously
>from Marxism. I don't understand why Foucault fans don't just say "yea, you
>are right. Foucault distanced himself from Marx."
>
>^^^^^
i don't see why it matters if he did. doesn't make his theories any less interesting or incapable of providing insight into the world. feminists distanced themselves from marxist theory, many of them decided to call themselves socialist feminist for good reasons. i don't think it makes their work useless and, in fact, it might help explain portions of the world that marx's theory just wouldn't and hadn't addressed. foucault, motivated deeply by an interest in sexuality and the self, was certainly trying to understand phenom. that marxist theories simply never touched -- and could speak to in any satisfactory way, particularly as regards political practice aimed at eradicating or at least mitigating hetero/sexism.
As a for instance, there was a wonderful study conducted by Lynne Haney, and one of the few ethnographies published in the ASA's official journal -- in 1997 or so, as I recall. There's been more since. Haney, using a Foucauldian framework, examined how young "at risk" black women resisted the social welfare workers who were trying to get them to dump their attachment to men and having their babies -- by clinging ever more tightly to their homeboys. Her research explored how intra-class warfare among women of color, some working as 'agents' of the state and supporters of the 'white men' who ran the programs, played out: the young women embraced and supported sexist domination from their men, in alliance against the middle class (*cough*) social workers and the upper middle class men who administered the programs.
Thus, you have some understanding, I think, of why people don't get on the klew train -- and that's important to know. It's also important to recognize people as having agency and participating, often quite willingly, in their own subjection. This is something that, at the icy height of marxist theoretical abstraction is rarely explored.
In that sense, people may distance themselves from Marx, but it may just be for the quite excellent reason that Marx, by himself, didn't give us all the answers and his theory may just have to be shoved up against the empirical world and, when found wanting, we say, "Let's look for something that helps ask the right questions of our answers"> ($1 to Cat.)
BTW, Charles, did you read Michael Eric Dyson's book, _Is Bill Cosby Right?_ Quite an excellent read. The guy's an excellent writer.
Speaking of excellent writer's, please feel free to ping me if you'd like some excerpts from Audacia Ray's book, Naked on the Internet. She'll be stopping by the blog on June 19th and, since my traffic is way down since I've been out of blogging for the last coupla months, I'd really like to get some people to show up and ask her a few questions or what have you. I'd appreciate it muchly since her writing really deserves a lot more play -- and this book is such a great read that I can't help but kvell about it.
>Bitch | Lab
http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)