/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5293238]

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

[Anonymous No.5293259]

>>5293238
glad you posted this again

[Anonymous No.5293292]

>>5293238
You called?

[Anonymous No.5293301]

>>5293292
You bald?

[Anonymous No.5293348]

>>5293259
Excuse me?

[Anonymous No.5293365]

>>5293292
Don't you dare group in that brilliant fag with that obfuscatory hack.

[Anonymous No.5293370]

>>5293238
is there evidence given of this "move" from a structuralist account? it seems like structuralist views are predominant and should be subverted

[Anonymous No.5293389]

Power has not been rearticulated in this manner.

It still comes from business end of a barrel, or is increasingly found in the terminal arc of a missile.

All else is but lead up, due diligence before application.

[Anonymous No.5293394]

>>5293365
>Don't you dare group in that brilliant fag with that obfuscatory hack.
The text in OP is pretty simple to understand if you have some knowledge of what structuralism represented.

>is there evidence given of this "move" from a structuralist account? it seems like structuralist views are predominant and should be subverted
The move from a structuralist account happened roughly at the end of 1960s.
I don't know which text is THE sign of this move, but I think many take it to be Derrida's essay "Structure Sign Play" and I think they have good reasons to do so, because I don't know any other essay that critique structure as much and in such direct manner as Derrida does there.
However, Derrida is quite different from what the rest of critique of structuralism have done.

[Anonymous No.5293399]

>>5293394
>Derrida
Who? I can't conceptualize it.

[Anonymous No.5293411]

Any recommendations on intertextuality,
/lit/? I've read Allen's introductory book, a tiny bit of Barthes, Bakhtin, and the two Kristeva articles that are normally cited. Trouble is, although Kristeva's articles are short, I find them borderline incomprehensible.

I should also say that I'm not looking at 'literary' texts, but the use of classical allusions in revolutionary political propaganda. Stuff like the relationship of fascism to the classics.

[Anonymous No.5293416]

>>5293399
This is a hardcore simplification, but Derrida is saying that structuralists tried to think of pure structure but forgot that the concepts they use for thinking of that structure are actually part of the structure, thus unstable and based on some prior choice. In similar way structuralists also quite ignored diachronic axis (Sassure) and payed attention only to synchronic one. In short, structuralists forgot that they themselves are caught in structures, which are more complex and fluid, similar to how Kant forgot that he must do away with language if he wants to reach pure reason.

[Anonymous No.5293475]

Lit theory question time?

I was listening to an Ernesto Laclau lecture in which he said that, although Saussure had imagined a science of signs, the way he applied semiotics inherently limited it to individual words. Something to do with each word corresponding to only one concept, or something?

Apparently some other guy then widened it to make words correspond to more than one concept, which allowed for a wider application of semiotics on a textual level, or... something like that. I can't remember it well. Might well have been the Copenhagen school, maybe?

Anyone have a clue what I'm half-remembering here?

[Ríastrad !ZqMZzC7CE. No.5293502]

You only know about this quote because of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c

[Anonymous No.5293524]

>>5293502
Geez, Pinker should be more aware of the metaphysics behind his thinking.

[Anonymous No.5293567]

>>5293238
>The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Of absolutely no use whatsoever to the daily struggle of human existence, yet there are those who expect a paycheck for drooling out this viscous, evil-smelling spittle.

[Anonymous No.5293574]

>>5293502
>>5293238
The text by Butler is completely clear and easy to read. These people really have a very poor reading comprehension or - which is more likely - they're reading something they know absolutely nothing about and are not even trying to understand it. I can also claim that all Japanese as such is bullshit because I don't understand any of it, while the latter is actually my fault.
I mean God, these people act like some spoiled lazy brats, the problem is other people trust their opinions.

[Anonymous No.5293578]

>>5293574
2/10

[Anonymous No.5293587]

>>5293578
?

[Anonymous No.5293719]

>>5293238
This is terrible writing. There's no reason to use such an effusion of obscure vocabulary, reference, and utter disregard for sane sentence length. Not to be a style nazi, but given the difficulty many people have with it I think it's fair to say you might at least consider the possibility that it could be written better. My attempt at a translation goes something like this:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to form social relations in relatively similar ways to a view of hegemony in which the exertions of power are repeated, convergent, and reinterpreted brought the question of the passage of time and its effects into thinking about structure. This marked a shift from a way of thinking that conceives of theoretical structural wholes to a new theory: now, instead of a monolithic, crystallized structure, investigation into the possibility of structure as changing based on external factors allows a new idea of hegemony. In the new way of thinking, hegemony is no longer an unchanging structure. Instead, it exists as a contextualized exertion of power, dependent on where and how power is exerted.

[Anonymous No.5293740]

>>5293238
Basically repeating the main thesis of Laclau and Mouffe in "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" in their attack of "orthodox" or "essentialist" marxism

[Anonymous No.5293754]

>>5293740
holy shit, you mean if we spread wealth out by fiat that will only redistribute the power unequally in another way?

This kind of argument makes me laugh at both marxists and their critics. It's all so simplistic when you get right down to it, it's no wonder they feel compelled to dress it up in high language in order to justify years of career spent on it.

[Anonymous No.5293783]

[Anonymous No.5293826]

>>5293783
I smiled.

[Anonymous No.5293837]

>>5293754
What?

The point is that power is structured in a multitude of relations, not only that between worker and employer. Or, and this is where the move from "Althusserian" stucturalism occurs, there is no fundamental "centre" to which, in the end, all forms of oppression can be reduced.

So yeah, the usual intersectionalistic routine. I mean sure Butler/Laclau/Mouffe/Zizek(?) have a point, but there never seems to be a clear course of action.

[Anonymous No.5293864]

>>5293292

Butler made a career out of Foucault, it really is scandalous.

Nothing in the above mentioned quote is something that Foucault would have not said.

[Anonymous No.5293887]

>>5293837
the point I was trying to make was that the passage seems to be pointing out that oppression is not easily reducible; a problem which seemed to plague the thinking of communists quite a bit. They seemed to think that if you removed oppression in the form of the distribution of capital (marx thought this was the sole source of oppression), then you'd get a lack of oppression. Instead, what you got was even more oppression, because when you have to establish a fiat to redistribute capital, that's really just centralizing control of all capital into a few people who have been tasked with doing so.

As such, marxists failed to realize that opporession could not simply be reduced to the distribution of capital; they should also have taken into account human greed - but that would have been impossible for them, since they did not want to admit that people are shitheads even in the absence of oppression.

[Anonymous No.5293902]

>>5293370
Structuralism was killed pretty well by post-structuralists in 70s in the continental Europe.

not sure about Americans who never progressed past new criticism

[Anonymous No.5293907]

>>5293902
>I would like to stir up shit by talking like a nationalistic cunt

you must be american

[Anonymous No.5293912]

>>5293837
>>5293864
Yep, Foucault is a big anchor or center in the history of this thought.
But even Foucault didn't spring out of nothing, his biggest influence here were probably Nietzsche and Canguilhem. He did took them much further however, incorporating some ideas of structuralism only to ultimately criticize it.

But even though Butler "stole" a lot from Foucault, she at least deals with things that Foucault didn't pay so much attention to, because it was probably too specific for him.

[Anonymous No.5294568]

>>5293238
she's very pretty on this pic.
I've seen her irl for a conference, she's not as pretty as this.
I don't believe this is a true quote.

[Anonymous No.5294582]

>>5294568
>I don't believe this is a true quote
Why not? There's nothing too crazy about it as long as you know what she's talking about. I guess it does go on for a while, but it's hardly Finnegans Wake.

[Anonymous No.5294610]

>>5293912
What's the point of Foucault's theories?
People suffer in prison?
duh.
I loved all these people in my 20s, but now I wonder what's the point.
Marx and Nietzsche really had balls : nobody wanted to pay them to teach, especially not prestigious universities.

[Anonymous No.5294623]

>>5294610
The point of Foucault's theories is that identity is the primary law of control, and it's enforced by surveillance.

[Anonymous No.5294630]

>>5294610
>People suffer in prison?
>duh.
Lol, read again. Panopticon is a metaphor, not even an architecture one, for a general change in power relations that happened roughly from 1760-1840. And that's only *one* of his books! There's so much more he's written about!

[Anonymous No.5294677]

>>5293238

reminds me of this horseshit

[Anonymous No.5294685]

>>5294677
Is postmodernism neo-Hegelianism?

[Anonymous No.5294738]

>>5294677
You have a poor reading comprehension if you put those two texts on the same level of obscurity. And the one you posted combines concepts in relationships that seem nonsensical because the concepts themselves are used out of their usual contexts.

[Anonymous No.5294742]

>>5294738
Agreed. The dreck.jpg is actual obscurantism done on purpose; the OP's text is just over-written.

[Anonymous No.5295278]

>>5293238
It is a lot simpler when you say, "Burn the cop shop."

Also, this text does not talk the self-activity of the proletariat as a multitude as its starting point, it is still operating in a subjectless vacuum.

[Anonymous No.5295316]

>>5293902
As if literary criticism is where this is played out.

Actually on reflect it is. Sociology is instrumentalist, historiography never drank the structuralist koolaide. Actual revolution is built by the proles through praxis.

[Anonymous No.5295325]

>>5293837
You do realise that structuralism removed the worker from the dialectic entirely? You're using post-structuralism to criticise an imaginary Tankie stalinism of your own creation.

He who critiques should first critique his own critique: you have an imaginary Stalin in your mind which has nothing to do with the actuality of 20th century class struggle.

Well done, you fucking fabulist.

[Anonymous No.5295326]

>>5295278
The concept of a subject itself presupposes some vacuum from which that subject sees the world. That's why the idea of subjectivity is not much better than an idea of objectivity.

[Anonymous No.5295333]

>>5293887
>They seemed to think that if you removed oppression in the form of the distribution of capital
>distribution of capital
>oppression

You've not read Marx at all.

Exploitation, the sucking of value in production and reproduction, is a result of the circuit of capital: not the "distribution" of capital.

This circuit is already a method for reducing a multitude to a single objectivity, and the production in resistance of a heterogeneous multitudinous collective as the proletariat IS ALREADY IN MARX.

Fucksake, bother to read the people you pantomime critiquing. This is one of the worst strawmen of Marx I've ever seen, the head even fell off.

[Anonymous No.5295341]

>>5295326
The vacuum of the subject is the exploitation that is valorisation of labour power during ...P..., the proletariat is a negative subjectivity capable of universal critique.

[Anonymous No.5296309]

>>5293238
Honestly, if you simplify everything there it would probably eat up like ten pages or more, just because of the technical terms the paragraph condensed. It's like in the first half you explain how come there's the shift, and then you propose what kind of theory of ideology now, which fits contemporary situations.

[Anonymous No.5296427]

Neat.

You need to look up what "homologous" means, as it does not fit where you placed it.

[Anonymous No.5296431]

>>5293394
>The move from a structuralist account happened roughly at the end of 1960s.
>I don't know which text is THE sign of this move, but I think many take it to be Derrida's essay "Structure Sign Play" and I think they have good reasons to do so, because I don't know any other essay that critique structure as much and in such direct manner as Derrida does there.
>However, Derrida is quite different from what the rest of critique of structuralism have done.
Nice copypasta, m8

[Anonymous No.5296476]

>>5293416
>similar to how Kant forgot that he must do away with language if he wants to reach pure reason.

People who don't know what they're talking about need to stop writing shit like this.

[Anonymous No.5296761]

>>5294610
>in my 20s
>being over 30 and still on /lit/

I'm laughing at you, but I'm also laughing at my own future.

[Anonymous No.5296792]

>>5293238
>The move to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to rearticulation marked a shift to a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the rearticulation of power.

>Hegemony as the rearticulation of power means that hegemony is related to the rearticulation of power.

Fuck you, Butler.

Also,
>tfw "rearticulation" just stopped seeming like a word
>tfw "rearticulation" wasn't a word to be begin with

[Anonymous No.5297357]

>>5296476
Is it not true? Kant wanted to abstract away from every experience matter to get to their forms, yet forgot how language and grammar influences his thinking.

[Anonymous No.5297537]

>>5295325
>You do realise that structuralism removed the worker from the dialectic entirely?
The point I was trying to make was that structuralism still maintained the Economy as the structuring "core" behind all forms of struggle and oppression. Later post-structuralists made the claim that there was no "priviliged" point that could be taken as a structuring core.

>He who critiques should first critique his own critique: you have an imaginary Stalin in your mind which has nothing to do with the actuality of 20th century class struggle.
Can't respond to this as I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.5297550]

>>5293783

why are women so shit at philosophy

>inb4 contrarian faggots in denial posting Wollstonecraft

[Anonymous No.5297560]

>>5296792
The concept of rearticulation here is close to that of reproduction. Butler's theory of hegemony has to do with discursive articulation of oppression (as in the universal language of reason that subsumes and eliminates differance under its hegemonic scope).

Lenin's theory of hegemony, for instance, was based on the idea of temporary "class alliances". That is, the working class would have to ally with other classes, perhaps even parts of the bourgeoisie, in order to obtain power.

Butlers theory of hegemony is much closer to Gramsci's. That is relations of power and oppression have to do with how power is enacted in discourse, and how this in turn affects the identity of the subject caught in this "relation of power". That is, Butler's theory of hegemony tries to link identity with the articulation, or "rearticulation" of power (thus emphasizing the fundamental role of language in this relation).

[Anonymous No.5297564]

>>5297550
Because of phallogocentrism. I'm waiting for a female author to make a spectacular move beyond it, like Nietzsche tried to move beyond logocentrism.

[Anonymous No.5297565]

>>5297550
>Wollstonecraft
>philosophy
wut. She's a political thinker. Her banter with Rousseau was lovely, though. They are in my headcanon.

[Anonymous No.5297567]

>>5297564
>phallogocentrism
kek. Meanwhile Butler's theory oscillates between University discourse and Master discourse. Talk about double standard.

[Anonymous No.5297572]

>>5297357

No. You're so wrong it's difficult to explain exactly *how* wrong you are.

>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

There is a primer on Kant's Critical project, written by a very capable Kant scholar. Read it. Kant was not attempting to "abstract away" from "experience matter." Quite the opposite. One of Kant's arguments from the CPR is that any reasoning divorced from possible experience is empty and can yield no object of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5297575]

>>5297567
Not him, but I'm pretty sure he meant that there are no female author, including Butler, who have gone beyond it, so I don't see why you were so ironic.

Also, is there a 'gone beyond' in a non-phallogocentric text? I don't think so. There is [nothing] beyond logos (notice the bracketing). That means the question of 'going beyond' is invalid to begin with.

[Anonymous No.5297591]

>>5297572
I know what Kant is about, I've read CPR myself in the past. I'm just not good with words because English isn't my language. When I said matter and form I meant in Kantian way, the way he talks about sensibility, time and space being forms of sense phenomena, so I just lazily applied that to everything. I'm not claiming this is a good argument or anything, but it is an interesting way to look at it when you say that by analogy he subconscously did the same with language instead of questioning the whole thing. I mean, the line he draws bettween empirial and a priori is pretty arbitrary at the end

[Anonymous No.5297605]

>>5297572
>>5297591
>>5297357
>>5296476
>>5293416
The source is this problem is German Idealism, namely the utter misunderstanding of Kant and other German Idealists.

[Anonymous No.5297614]

>>5297605
Well didn't Kant had to use transcendental apperception to make sense of everything?

[Anonymous No.5297714]

>>5297614
How does that relate to your claim that Kant forgot about the language that he used which influence his thought? Sorry for the late reply. I'm forced to think hard here, namely because of trying to establish a relation between structuralist assumption and transcendental assumption, which is nothing at all. But let's proceed and see how far we mutate the two, without the assistance of contemporary philosophers.

[Anonymous No.5297760]

>>5297565

Whenever I point out that women having contributed anything to philosophy, edgy faggots bring up muh Wollstonecraft and muh feminism, as if one thinker fixes everything.

[Anonymous No.5297888]

>>5296761
why?
in my €uro Uni, we had older guys in class (usually preparing the Agrégation).
I hope you become an Astronaut by 30.

[Anonymous No.5297908]

>>5297560
I will play the beotian again :
these thinkers theories are impressive.
Now, can you tell me one practical thing they *did* that is as impressive as their thinking about power and structures?

If you really did break the Matrix in our heads, then show me what special powers you got, apart from licking pussy like a pro.

Else, I'm not interested in reading them more.

[Anonymous No.5297938]

>>5297908
this feminist girl, Valerie Solanas, shot Andy Warhol.

[Anonymous No.5297958]

>>5297908
>If you really did break the Matrix in our heads, then show me what special powers you got, apart from licking pussy like a pro.
>apart from

[Anonymous No.5297969]

>>5297958
teach me.

[Anonymous No.5297977]

>>5297969
Experiment with the slit, but end with the clit.

[Anonymous No.5297985]

>>5297977
okay.

[Anonymous No.5298460]

>>5297908
I agree with you on this point. Post-structuralism seems in many ways to be incompatible with a kind of political theory that tries to move beyond mere criticism in order to focus on a course of action.

The second half of the Foucault/Chomsky debate illustrates this perfectly.

[Anonymous No.5298472]

>>5297888
>>astronaut
4chan is the most popular site on the ISS.

[Anonymous No.5298646]

>>5298460
>The second half of the Foucault/Chomsky debate illustrates this perfectly.
how?
I've vaguely heard of it.

One thing I learnt about Derrida is that he just wants to make people laugh.
I think laugh is the practical consequence of his work.
He takes all the elaborate theories and says "look, it's just this".
Plato himself was jealous of poets (his ban on imitation).

[Anonymous No.5299845]

>>5297908
>>5298460
I think post-structuralism ultimately leads to a kind of informed/less-naive anarchism i.e. hierarchy or power relations are a fact of life but anarchy goes against any normalization of power

[Anonymous No.5299924]

>>5298646
>One thing I learnt about Derrida is that he just wants to make people laugh.
In some way yes. He wants to makes us laugh at arbitrary historical decisions , but this allows us to think differently, which I believe was his main goal - to go beyond historical limits of though (which is a hard thing to do it requires deconstruction in his opinion)

[Anonymous No.5299956]

Meh. Gramsci is overrated. The obsession with the concept of hegemony is the biggest obstacle to real change if you ask me. As long as the truth-effect of repetition via mass media achieves the necessary hegemony behind the backs of the class-marginalized (Marxist pro-tip: class difference is the only one that really matters. All this race-gender shit is strategic distraction), it's game over before it even started.

[Anonymous No.5299993]

>>5299956

You mean "right in their faces," not behind their backs, right? Power is naked.

[Anonymous No.5300021]

>>5299993

What's up with all the erotica in /lit/ of late.

[Anonymous No.5300136]

>>5299956
>Marxist pro-tip: class difference is the only one that really matters. All this race-gender shit is strategic distraction
All of these matter, don't start an academical war. It is unproductive to focus only one aspect, whichever that aspect is. All in all, yes, class has generally more "lethal" effect.

[Anonymous No.5300242]

>>5298646
Foucault lays down the basics of his theory of power, the institutionalization of power, epistemological "grids", etc. Chomsky meanwhile presents a theory of resistance to class oppression, taking civil disobediance as an example, and legitimizing it by a certain notion of justice.

Foucault, of course, immediately responds that this pre-concieved notion of justice risks replacing the old system of oppression with a new one, that might perhaps be even worse. He names communist Russia as such an example (as a state modelled after the borgeouis one).

Foucault, in his critique of the institutionalization of power (such as can be seen in his "History of Madness"), nevertheless does concieve of this as a form of oppression. An oppression that must be laid bare in order to hinder its further institutionalization (normalization). This raising the question: In the name of what? Why is this necessarily bad? He criticizes the idea of Justice as a driving-force for social struggle, yet seems to advocate a form of struggle without presenting a cause or reason as to "why we must struggle".

Most post-structuralist political thinkers seem to struggle with this dilemma. In this case, I much prefer Derrida's notion of Justice as a legitimate, and perhaps the only, driving force for political struggle.

[Anonymous No.5300255]

I used to think what Butler does is what someone with a like 170iq would do to social science, and if you knew and could rememember a few hundred signifieds for each word she had written, a couple long sentences which refer back to their other parts wouldn't be much of a problem.

Then I read enough baudrillard to be able to write like she does just by faking it. So now i know i was wrong.

[Anonymous No.5300320]

>>5300136
>>5299956

Well, of course class struggle matters. The need to emphasize class struggle, for instance by countering the present neo-liberal discourse with one that lays bare the fundamentally oppressive nature of the economy, is exactly the way that hegemony is enacted. The future of the left lies in its ability to form a unified hegemonic front. However, its success in doing so may rely on its ability to link class oppression to other forms of oppression (of non-whites, women, etc).

[Anonymous No.5300356]

>mfw tried to rec feminist friend Foucault's work on biopolitics but she rejected it because "she's more interested in viewpoints that weren't given privilege"

[Anonymous No.5300362]

>>5300320
>However, its success in doing so may rely on its ability to link class oppression to other forms of oppression (of non-whites, women, etc).
Bullshit.

The only oppression of women I care about is the exploitation of working class women.

[Anonymous No.5300367]

>>5300362
You realize you're the minority in modern leftism?

[Anonymous No.5300371]

>>5300320
linking class oppression with other forms of oppression has been such a colossal fuckup for leftism tho

[Anonymous No.5300376]

>>5300242
>Why is this necessarily bad?
Foucault doesn't say power is bad, he sees power, particularly modern, as productive. I think he even says somewhere that power produces its own resistance in the excess of its product, kind of implying that we should use that excess against power mechanisms themselves. Foucault is only against limiting of possibilities of life, which I think is in part an influence from Nietzsche. For instance he wants to affirm all kinds of "insanities" instead of only affirming the normalized kind (that we call "sanity"). In the same way he argues against sexuality and sex and for bodily-pleasure which would again overcome categorization of pleasures and allow for more full experiences.

[Anonymous No.5300381]

>>5300362
preach

[Anonymous No.5300428]

Biopower is a drug lord entering your house and raping your daughter.

[Anonymous No.5300450]

>>5300356

Great imaginary story, faggot.

[Anonymous No.5300481]

>>5300450
Get over yourself turbonerd

[Anonymous No.5300693]

>>5297614

The transcendental unity of apperception is necessary to prove the "objectivity" of the representations of external objects, among other things. I don't see what your point is.

>>5297591

Time and Space are pure forms of intuition, not of "sense phenomena." Intuition and sensibility are often conflated in interpretation, and Kant seems to slip into this error himself in places, but they should be kept distinct. I

I don't follow your "analogy." Please explain.

The difference between a postereori and a priori is about as non-arbitrary as you can get. Again, I don't follow your meaning. Please explain.

[Anonymous No.5300696]

>>5300481

Obtain friends that aren't deluded tumblr cows, then.

[Anonymous No.5301170]

>>5300481
topkek

The problem is that these people hear about "privilege theory" (or more widely, the postmodern, multicultural new left mindset) from tumblr or from an Intro to Anthropology teacher. They don't realize they're actually buying into an entire philosophy, because most of these people have never read philosophy. So they have no clue about the underlying assumptions that their worldview is based off. And what makes it worse is that their mindset actually restricts them from ever breaking this barrier because they've learned that reading "dead white men" is a bad thing.

It's like an accidental cult.

[Anonymous No.5301184]

>>5301170
Heh, I don't think I've seen much posts that started with "topkek" actually make a point as coherently as you have.

[Anonymous No.5301256]

>>5301170
>New Left
Absolutely cancer on leftism

[Anonymous No.5301363]

>>5301184
Oh, I had paid little notice to the image attached, which I do remember as often accompanying more thoughtful comments rather than not .

[Anonymous No.5301929]

>>5300367
>You realize you're the minority in modern leftism?
No I'm not. You seem to be conflating radical liberal nomenklatura with the left. The only point for distinguishing a left is proletarian abolition of capital.

[Anonymous No.5301931]

>>5300381
Get a job
Join the union
Burn your boss

[Anonymous No.5302171]

>>5300376
I wasn't saying that power is inherently bad. However, in those cases where the institutionalization of power has become "rigid", Foucault nevertheless attempts a critique of those institutions. In the name of what? Based on which principles? If we are just left with a sort of Nietzschean "will to power", we are facing a dead end when it comes to politics.

[Anonymous No.5302181]

>>5300371
How?

[Anonymous No.5302221]

>>5297564

Phallogocentism is logocentric because it locates a phallus as being central to logocentrism, just as logocentrism(s) locate centers; in order to be truly non-phallogocentric you have to deconstruct the concept of phallogocentrism.

[Anonymous No.5302941]

Judith Butler defends her bad writing by arguing that if she wrote clearly she would sacrifice her abilities to disrupt power structures.

> this is what tenured academics actually believe

[Anonymous No.5304098]

>>5302171
>In the name of what? Based on which principles? If we are just left with a sort of Nietzschean "will to power", we are facing a dead end when it comes to politics.
Read this essay of his (Of other spaces: utopias and heterotopias):
http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/foucault1.pdf

I think when it comes to politics Foucault intentionally doesn't want to give any definitive answers because he has similar perception as Deleuze i.e. he wants us to overcome power relations in various ways and directions (lines of flight) because power itself is heterogeneous, he probably sees a part of solution/fight in "other places" (heterotopias). I believe he would maybe fit quite easily in what is now called "poststructuralist anarchism". Check Todd May, he's trying to synthesize a bunch of poststructuralists to create new politics:
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-poststructural-anarchist/