It deliberately ignores the context of the article, which offers a reading of Nietzsche's conception of history, a view that influences Foucault, but is not Foucault's view itself. Butler does a good job of sussing out some of the differences in her latest Giving an account of... You know the dude actually wrote more than one article. robert wood
^^^^ CB: Sure, but why is it all such a big mystery ? Can't you all ( Robert, Dennis, Miles, shag, et al.) give a clear, concise statement of what Foucault ( and Nietzche's and Butler's) view of history is ? Especially, as focused on the differences with Marx ? There really aren't all that many different plausible and sensible points of view on it. Nor that many aspects such a theory. There are only a few major issues, and one has one side or the other on the major issues.
What points does Foucault agree with Marx on ? Which points does he disagree on ? Where does he think he is developing something Marx didn't deal with , and what does he say about it ? Just take Marx's main claims , and say what F or N or B's point of view is on each claim.
What do they agree with structuralism on and what disagree ?
If you would answer those questions...
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com