The Death of Foucault
I started reading Derrida the other day, only to be hit with the thought, why? It seemed like something that I should be interested in, but it all seems a bit irrelevant now. Who was the last deconstructionist you met? Or the last person who actually read Derrida?
So i stopped reading Derrida and started reading Habaermas. Martin then asked me 'why would you want to read Habermas?' Sadly it feels a little true, despite being the kind of thing that I would want to read, there doesn't seem to be a point. People have stopped being interested in the Marxist/post-modernist tradition in the last year or so, almost like it had reached its logical conclusion or proliferated to the point of ceasing to make sense or something.
There seems to be a distinct lack of it in blogs. Infact, it feels like everyone just got bored with it one day and thought maybe it was time to give the other guys a go for a bit and headed down the more analytic side of things? Am I imagining things or have other people noticed this? Or is it just the general trend in the small philosophical circles which I am associated? It seemed like Foucault was a perfectly good answer to everything, but now it has to be something a bit more scientific, a little more 'provable'. Maybe its just me and its been this way all the time: I only thought Foucault was the answer.
So i stopped reading Derrida and started reading Habaermas. Martin then asked me 'why would you want to read Habermas?' Sadly it feels a little true, despite being the kind of thing that I would want to read, there doesn't seem to be a point. People have stopped being interested in the Marxist/post-modernist tradition in the last year or so, almost like it had reached its logical conclusion or proliferated to the point of ceasing to make sense or something.
There seems to be a distinct lack of it in blogs. Infact, it feels like everyone just got bored with it one day and thought maybe it was time to give the other guys a go for a bit and headed down the more analytic side of things? Am I imagining things or have other people noticed this? Or is it just the general trend in the small philosophical circles which I am associated? It seemed like Foucault was a perfectly good answer to everything, but now it has to be something a bit more scientific, a little more 'provable'. Maybe its just me and its been this way all the time: I only thought Foucault was the answer.
posted by Captain Kickarse at 9:37 pm
3 Comments:
Rowan, I think that you are right about the decline in interest in Marxist and post-modernist thought in the Newcastle circle. While I’m not around as much as I once was, I could sense a refocusing taking place toward the end of last year. In part I think it has to do with the nature of individuals studying, and their tastes and interests, rather than being a reflection of the state of philosophy as a whole. I can say that my interest has shifted because of the areas I’ve been working in. It is all well and good to have an interest in Foucault, but when you’re working in bioethics other philosophers end up claiming priority. The same sort of factors are guiding my reading at the moment, where I find myself being drawn to Aquinas and Mill because of their impact on jurisprudence, and thus lack the time I would like to give to the likes of Foucault and Derrida.
This, sort of, brings me to the proposition I have been contemplating since I first read your post – that a philosopher’s reading list is influenced by pragmatic considerations. Since there isn’t time to become acquainted with everything, philosophers (including students) decide what to read based on pragmatic considerations. Taking Samuel as an example, it would be a waste of his time to read Adorno and Horkheimer while he is working on his problems in the philosophy of language and mind.
And this brings me to your dilemma – whether to carry on reading Derrida and Habermas. I know that I made the comment about you reading Habermas, but I think that it is an important question. Why would you want to read Habermas? What do you intend to gain from reading him? ‘The Future of Human Nature’ is not worth the time it takes to read unless you have a reason to do so. Perhaps that is the question you need to answer prior to reading anything …
On Foucault, I think that you are onto something. Foucault goes a long way to solving a lot of problems, but his work is incomplete, and it does require more expansive development many areas.
Your post raises more issues, but I’ve spent a little too long on this already. I’m thinking of trying to compose something more substantive …
I'm inclined to agree. The way I see it is that Foucault is part of the answer, but is too incomplete to provide a comprehensive explanation for most things.
It also depends on how you are trying to answer the quesion.
Clearly it depends on what question you are trying to answer, but this is my question. Why has there been the shift in what questions we are asking?
Is the activity of critique a dead end pursuit if what are wanted are substantive answers? As I suggested, this might just be my direct and limited experience of the philosophical community, or maybe I have failed to move beyond certain hang ups of my own.
But it does not seem entirely unreasonable to postulate that there is a sense that the events of 11th of September 2001, the invasion of Iraq, the war on Terror, etc. coupled with the increasing stability of society to deal with the ever increasing rate of technological change, and the apparent success of neo-conservative economics, brought about a sense of security for the most part of western society and that this may have made a general trend towards attempts to make a new foundational basis in many areas, including philosophy.
Post-modernism has become an almost dirty word, likewise relativism. Philosophers seem to have moved from trying to find foundational stability through the processes of critique and destabilisation. Whether this is because it failed, or because of the false sense of security of the new 50’s, I’m not sure. It definitely feels like maybe there is widespread philosophical burying the head in the sand in the face of nothing really productive since Foucault and Baudrillard (who is effectively the last of his kind after the deaths of Derrida and Lyotard). I believe in reality we still live with the shadow of the post-modern condition of ‘a crisis of authority’ and a lack of substantial basis to hang a philosophical framework on. Has this crisis extended to post-modernism itself, ironically deepening the emptiness of post-modernity more than ever?
Post a Comment
<< Home