Sunday, October 4, 2009
In This Corner....
Foucault seems to be setting himself up for a theoretical throw down. He uses his discussion of the genealogies, or subjugated knowledges, to establish his starting point. His claim that these knowledges have been repressed by “globalizing discourses” serves as the focal point of his argument. The strictly scientific and systematisizing knowledges that had become the leading forms of theory, had pushed aside all other forms of knowledge and understanding. Foucault does not seem to make the claim that these theories are evil in nature. He does not rise up and call for their annihilation. He is searching for a way to examine these theories and bring light to the effects that they have on the societies in which they have gained so much power. He is not trying to limit the number of ways that we can understand the world, but rather, open up our thinking to some approaches and understandings which have been swept under the rug.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Foucalut is the first critic who actually acknowledges the value of the plebian memory. The locals whose knowledge is not "erudite" actually has something to offer. Does this open the door into allowing that authors who are "popular" (I'm thinking Stephen King)actually might have something to add to theory?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Jameson looks at the door Foucoult opens toward the value of popular art and literature and slams it shut. I think he'd disagree that they have much to offer. Maybe we could have a theoretical throwdown on our hands.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of language ( given the suggestion that there is no unifying point of reference), it is interesting to me that Foucault uses "genealogies", a word most would argue has a more universally accepted meaning, to refer to subjugated knowledges (130) instead of leaving the term as is, without an additional signifier. This action seems to cloud his intentions and render his argument all the more obtuse.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Johanna. There seemed to be quite a few seeming contradictions in the Foucault, and, like you imply, there were definitely a few times when I was thinking, "Ouch!" with regard to some of the language Foucault was using to describe the more globalized theories.
ReplyDeleteI also think that it was neat that he thought that common minds might have just as much to offer as the most knowledge-obsessed scholar.
When I was reading this I thought of the prescriptionist linguists. They discount local dialects, think that there's only one "right" way to speak English or write a text, and they miss out on a lot of flavor (perhaps there's a reason that there are fewer English pubs than French restaurants?).
Living, as Foucault says, can often offer more wisdom than a bunch of dusty old books. Perhaps, if both are combined, then a true unity can emerge.