With Apologies, a Little More Foucault

(X-posted)

A few more brief notes about the discussion of Foucault are in order.  Far from being tired, as Alex suggests, I think we should have more such conversations, and more frequently.  As serious scholars, we should not concede the floor to sad spectacles of transparent cronyism, nor should we brook the claim that a frequently cited work—one whose title often appears to the immediate right of words like “seminal” and “magesterial”—is near-juvenalia.  Critics of Madness and Civilization are not members of a committee maliciously conspiring to torpedo the career of a promising graduate student, but members of a scholarly community which (ideally) can discuss the relative merits of a work considered important. 

Where Madness and Civilization fits into the Foucauldian corpus is, for the moment, irrelevant.  Point of fact, the desire to defend Foucault from his own work—cutting his nose to spite his face—suggests an irrational investment in its inviolability.  (This investment is made all the more irrational by the scapegoating by which its illusion is sustained.) If we ignore the historiographical problems with Madness and Civilization, Foucault remains for his acolytes what they desperately need him to be.  But what if we mention, as I did, the problems Simon Goldhill identifies in The History of Sexuality? Will it be jettisoned too?  I only ask because this reverential model leads to some supremely unintellectual waters, a frightful bilge we would do best to avoid.  This is not, however, a post about the inbred thought of oblivious sycophants. 

Following Foucault Blog‘s lead, this is a post about what I should have foregrounded in my initial one; namely, that I juxtaposed the Scull alongside “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” because I value the standards espoused in the latter, not to hoist Foucault by his own petard.  To claim that only an unserious, derivative hack—like those fools who populate English departments—could express a preference for one Foucauldian period over another is profoundly myopic.  Those who chose not to weld the blinders on can see where I’m headed here: Scull may not be able to differentiate methodology from the conclusions drawn through it, but we can; moreover, his review should compel us to question this issue as it relates both to Foucault’s work and our own.  Methodological reflection should be part and parcel of academic study; declaring it anathema will neither preserve another’s reputation nor allow us to do the quality work required to build our own.

Comments

[Anthony Paul Smith]

John,

I don't think there is anything like debate with you because you always insist on setting yourself up as the master in the room. The one who has the right, and the only right, to set the terms of debate even if it is on a subject you know little about. It is possible that you understand yourself as possibly being wrong but as I have never seen you say you were wrong or adjust your position due to 'debate' I have to assume you just don't think you've ever been wrong in actuality. Frankly the reason I said you aren't an analytic philosopher in any meaningful sense is that I don't think you do philosophy. At least all that I've seen from you is basically Berlin-esque 'take-downs' of Continental philosophers. None of it interests me very much philosophically because I can't see any worth in it, oftentimes I think it is just plain historically inaccurate (even with your protestation that your Husserl/German romanticism thing is much more nuanced than I am giving it credit for), and a reading wilfully lacking in grace.

And, so no, I wouldn't take what you have to say on Deleuze very seriously because I know you are already in a position of hostility towards him. Frankly what you would have to say would have already been said any number of other Anglo-American critics with a commitment to a far different understanding of philosophy. I would hope that I would have dealt with that in my own mind already. John, what I'm saying is, you've never given me a good reason to think that I should take your opinion on these matters (philosophically) seriously. Only should I take them serious as blog ramblings, regardless of whether or not you call them articles.

I would like to respond to some specific lines in your comment but they are so misrepresentative of myself and the way I think that I can't. It's not worth the time to try and recast the terms of debate with you. (After all you can't even admit when someone who likes you is wrong for Christ's sake!) But I do have to respond to this bit, "Because you see this not as a debate - in which there will be an attempt to exchange reasons and arguments - but as a turf war. I honestly don't get this. I don't see why you are interested in philosophy, if you see it as just a turf war." Yes, I do not see this as a debate for reasons stated above. But more importantly I don't think that philosophy is a debate where we exchange reasons and arguments (thanks John!). That, to me, is the most tedious part of philosophy. But, no, I don't think of philosophy as a turf war either, in fact I think the turf war is very much a part of the 'reasons and arguments' bullshit. Not because I am against reason or arguments, but because the reality of the debates on the blogosphere is so much posturing and aggressive rhetoric between people I wouldn't feel comfortable getting a beer with in real life. I mean, really, do you people just not read Rich's comments?

To conclude, I don't realy care if you don't like me or if you think I'm an idiot. I'm not all that impressed with who you do like or who you don't think is an idiot. I don't do the MLA or the APA, but rather the AAR, BSP and SPEP, so on a professional level (non-blog) I hardly see why it matters.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Something wasn't clear with this post. I don't think that SEK fits the description of given of John above. I only put you two together in terms of the take down post and though I am likely not to take too seriously (meaning I would likely not rethink my whole research project on the basis of his blog post) a Deleuze 'take down' post of his, I don't think that post would exhibit the same tendencies as Holbo. He may even be willing to think that I’m not just defending Deleuze irrationally since we don’t have the same bad blood he has with Craig. He has always been willing to admit when he is wrong (not so much when Rich is wrong) and doesn't appear to only be concerned with taking down Continental philosophers. I respect SEK much more than I do you and that has led me to try and return the favor. I’ve even followed up criticisms he has made of figures with experts on those figures. Even considered doing an online reading group, though I think time constraints killed that idea.

[jholbo]

I find your critique of my Deleuze post I've never written a bit thin, Anthony. You say that Scott's Deleuze post he hasn't written is better than mine I haven't written, because of a difference in 'tendencies'. Frankly, it stings a bit that even a lowly English grad student can not write a better Deleuze post - and me, a doctor of philosophy IN philosophy. I can't help think that you meant it to sting. So I'm asking you to prove it. Can you pin it down to textual specifics - maybe do some close reading? What exactly haven't I said yet that you are sure is so wrong, and why? Couldn't it be that, although some regard what I haven't said as a cheap 'take down', others regard it as a wittily ironic send-up of Deleuze's own stylistic excesses?

Anyone else want a crack at my Deleuze post?

[Rich Puchalsky]

Since the animal fighting for his little piece of land and Adam have emerged from their two-month hibernation for yet another not-a-flame-war -- I should say that in this case, I have to make some criticisms of John's Deleuze post. Let it never be said that I always agree with John about everything.

First, its length. I know that you're committed to Holbonic length and all, John, but this time the words were literally uncounteable. Can't you do anything to make these posts more readable? Consequently I only have an impression of what the post actually contained, but I thought the idea of taking off on the "body without organs" with those sci-fi movies was kind of predictable, as well as the whole desiring-machine functioning as a circuit-breaker vs Valve thing.

And the whole bit about his debt to Nietzsche -- well, I don't see what you could know about Nietzsche, John, as an analytical philosopher, or perhaps at best as a historian of continental philosophy. I think that a logic table would have been more in keeping with your role.

Finally, I don't think that you really covered deterritorialization. As Anthony points out, you have a lot to learn in the area of "I'm rhizomatic, You're turfy".

And Scott's post, too -- sure, he questioned the concept of rhizomaticity, but it was mostly a rush towards agreement with the critique of Freud and Lacan.

[Adam Kotsko]

I agree wholeheartedly with the first point of Rich's critique of Holbo's post.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Yes, very clever. So I take it we are done?

[SEK]

I'm sorely tempted to make this the topic of my next post.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Why the Spanish version? Even if you can't read French, they have an English one out. Is it because you follow Massumi on the quality of this translation? Either way, go ahead, I'll just ignore it.

[SEK]

Did I link to the Spanish translation? Damn it, I just thought it was more recent than the Hand. And I don't know what Massumi said about that translation, but I still thank the man for helping me make it through that Deleuze seminar. Were it not for the User's Guide, my head likely would've exploded. I must admit, I'm actually quite fond of Deleuze, but can't use him in my own work: he brings out the worst in me, as a critic. Maybe tonight I'll post bits of my seminar paper on Dickens and Deleuze for you not to read ...

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Massumi said that the Hand translation was bad, very bad indeed, in a footnote in the User's Guide.

I told you, I'm just going to ignore it! Unless I don't, in which case I won't. I've never read Dickens so I likely wouldn't get it.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

I have to ask - is Deleuze that interesting to literary criticsm? Is he popular in those places?

[Adam Kotsko]

Everyone needs to just read the French. As John Holbo says, it's basically English with slight variations (especially if you abstract out the pronunciation).

If I have my way, our generation will be the one that brings back polylingual erudition, thereby rendering translations obselete.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Well if he said it then it must be right. But I don't think anyone said what you think you are remembering them saying.

[SEK]

Massumi said that the Hand translation was bad, very bad indeed, in a footnote in the User's Guide.

Well then, the joke's on me. As for the role of Deleuze in literary criticism, his appropriation's partly his own fault: a lot of people in '90s built off Kafka, writing minor histories of minor literatures and what-not. More generally, you see his a lot of citations of BWO in post-human studies and the attendant feminisms, postcolonialisms, &c. I'll dig around in my documents and see if I can't find the old Dickens/Deleuze essay; I also have a Tristram Shandy/Deleuze paper, as well as a Joyce/Deleuze/Bataille one, if I'm remembering it correctly. There's bound to be plenty of bad applications of Deleuzian thought to mock in there.

And I can read French, Adam, thank you very much. German and Hebrew too, though not very well. And Latin! Don't forget Latin! My point? A polylingual education ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

I didn't mean that appropriation would be bad, just didn't seem like there is too much there for literary critics to work with. Then again, I don't really get exactly what you people do. I could see his work being of interest you with its biology bent, too bad it is the wrong country and decade for your dissertation.

[Adam Kotsko]

You can read all those languages, but you can't tell the difference between Spanish and English. Color me skeptical.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Well, to be fair, the name of the book is Foucault in any language.

[SEK]

Adam, you can't even tell it's the Spanish edition until you scroll down (which I didn't). I just thought it was a more recent translation. (Also, upon preview, what Anthony said.)

Anthony, no, all literary appropriations of Deleuze aren't bad, but my first-year-o'-grad-school ones certainly were. It's what most people's first attempt to apply theory to literature end up like: sad creatures, birthed by someone for whom the phrase "weak minds love systems" is apt. I may have told this one before, but there was one student in my year for whom every essay -- we all proofed each other's work back then -- closed the first paragraph with this boilerplate: "In what follows, I will attend to the difficulties [Theorist X] presents for conventional accounts of [Literary Work Y]." Every damn paper, for two years, had that as its thesis statement. (In later years, s/he would vary the wording a bit, but the crutch remained ... and this wouldn't be a proper comment if I didn't mock someone else's crutches.)

[Adam Kotsko]

Since I went to a Christian college, every "theory"-based lit paper I did was really moralizing. (Christian appropriations of philosophy in general tend to be really moralizing. Perhaps that's to be expected.)

[jholbo]

I was at a Star Trek convention and I picked up a Klingon translation of Deleuze for just a few bucks. I work from that in the post I haven't written.