>And Eagleton, in After Theory and elsewhere, paid attention to the
>pomo panjandrums;
This is supposed to mean pomo, so-called, was engaged in battle? Maybe that's the way it was taken by people who thought they had something to protect, but that doesn't make it true.
Foucault had something to say about this from an interview (see below) that used to be in a book called Remarks on Marx, but may now also be in Foucault Live. As you can see from the heading, this excerpt appears here every now and again
>worse yet, he discusses at length in other work the actual
>literature to which Theory was supposed to apply.
Suggesting that pomos were too busy building panjandrums to read texts? That's another straw person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
> I've been reading Abu Hartal's "ass kicking", "name taking" posts and
> wondering why it's so common for leftists (and not just the silver
> tongued AH) to accuse other leftists of being
It's been a year and a half since this passage was last posted to this list:
> 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?