What’s Wrong with the World

I doubt that Foucault misread the islamic revolution. That's giving him undeserved credit, instead he read it with perfect clarity and for precise reasons.
Does the term "counter culture" come to mind? How about Jacobinism, Bolshevism, or Nihilism ?

The French Revolution began something both new and unwelcome, the rationalization of violence and turmoil, the uprooting of society, in a word, ideology as defense, explanation, and excuse.

Kings, when they wished, gave reasons. Fanatics and ideologues give justification, as much to themselves as to whoever will listen.

Although others have described it or named it Ludwig Von Mises did it with one word, destructionism, the contrarian mind carrying itself past the boundry of the normal, even the civilized. It doesn't take to close a reading of history to see it.

Eric Hoffer explained much of this in "The True Believer".
And old Freud was on to something in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle".

Foucault, even by the usual standards of debauchery and animosity, an extreme case, but still representative of a breed that's cursed us for over two hundred years. I'm tempted to say an archetype.

You can put it in one word:

Evil.

We are talking about a man who deliberately spread AIDS. If there is a hell, he is down there, screaming with all the worms on him, and the darkness and fire Christ talked about.

Did Afary & Anderson misinterpret Foucault?

Well, who could blame them? Foucault was one of the worst and clumsiest writers ever to walk the Earth.

I included a couple of hundred pages of his stuff in a course I taught at Johns Hopkins a few years ago. And I've regretted it ever since.

He only wished he was Nietzsche, silly old queen.

Lost a few brain cells in that project, huh, Steve? My profound sympathies for anyone who got stuck reading *a couple hundred pages* of Foucault. Yikes!

Yikes, indeed.

My first experience with M.Foucault was "What is an author?" - where he flounders about, for page after page, apparently in total ignorance of basic stuff like "definite descriptions" and "rigid designators."

Entirely excusable, coming from an amateur. But from a world-famous "philosopher?"

Pathetic.

Foucault was one of the worst and clumsiest writers ever to walk the Earth.

If I might damn with faint praise, at least he is a model of lucidity by comparison to Baudrillard.

He only wished he was Nietzsche, silly old queen.

Too true, too true.

Ok, so we've got two shots at his homosexuality, including one celebrating his eternal torment. We've also got two of the standard "he's haaaarrrrd" complaints.

Awesome.

FWIW I got some value out of Foucault's takedown of Bentham's Panopticon. Positivist tyrants and libertine postmoderns just don't mix well, and it can be amusing to watch the results. But it is kind of like watching a cockfight: pretty interesting the first time you unwittingly stumble across it, but quite unhealthy when sought out as a habit. IMO.

I'm not arguing that "he's haaaaaarrrddd!" Perhaps some of his diction could have been more precise; perhaps the argument is that the subject matter does not permit analytical exactness.

I do believe that Steve was saying something a good deal more pointed than that Foucault is difficult. It is possible to write well about a difficult subject. Steve said he's a poor writer. You can disagree, but it certainly is not the same thing. Steve also mentioned amateurish flounderings in need of concepts like definite description (as in "the author of Waverly"). Again, this has nothing to do with considering F. to be saying something difficult. Very much to the contrary, in fact.

MikeWC: there's hard, and then there's hard, and then again there's hard.

Some writers are hard to read because of the intrinsic difficulty of their subject matter, despite the lucidity of their style. Hume's *Treatise* might be a good example.

Other writers are hard to read because, although what they're trying to say is not particularly challenging, they're just not very good at expressing themselves. See Hegel's *Phenomenology*.

Still other writers suffer from both problems: intrinsically difficult subject matter plus a crippling prose style (or lack thereof). E.g., the "transcendental deduction of the categories" *has* to be hard, but it *doesn't* have to be *quite* as hard as Kant makes it.

Having dutifully plowed through many a page of Foucault, and having discussed what I read with distinguished colleagues more sympathetic to his work than I am, and having taught some of his stuff, which calls for extra care, I'm afraid I have to consign him to the second category.

Lydia - exactly. I'm no blind worshipper at the shrine of analytic philosophy - but there's no doubt that they've done yeoman work in elucidating the basic distinctions and developing the technical vocabulary necessary for discussing the sort of issues that Foucault seems to think he's tackling in a piece like "What is an Author?"

That said, he's hardly the worst. I've only read a few bits and pieces of Baudrillard, but I have to agree with Maximos - in comparison, those bits and pieces made Foucault look like a paragon of French clarity.

Foucault's "thing" for the Islamic revolution is restricted to its widespread appeal that included secular marxists and islamic fundamentalists. It's failure and Iran today are not the fault of Foucault and I've seen no evidence he is an advocate of the current Islamic state.

I've read Afary and Anderson's book and it's flawed on many points. Most of their darker interpretations of Foucault's life depends on a tabloid understanding that lacks substantial evidence. Foucault's unfortunate enthusiasm for the Iranian revolution is easily redeemed in a complete reading of his oeuvre. One cannot assume he would support repressions in Iran if they read and understood Discipline and Punish. One cannot assume that rituals of self-mutilation are embraced by Foucault if they read and understand his lecture series Hermeneutics of the Self. One cannot reduce Foucault to having a thing for the Iranian revolution after reading his later works.

This blog should seriously engage Foucault rather than this type of nonsense:

Foucault, that reviewer argues, is misread by the authors of the volume; an explanation for his "misreading" of the Islamic revolution will have to await another work. This, however, is not to state that there is no substance whatsoever to that conservative trope. But is it applicable to Foucault? Does it matter? If the authors' interpretation is egregiously flawed, then none of this is of any consequence; but if their interpretation even approximates Foucault's rationale for the embrace of the Ayatollah, it might well illuminate something about the further reaches of the left.

Not sure what the further reaches of the left are or why they apply to Foucault. A reasonable critique would've examine his own words rather than the quoting an article on a book critiquing his work.

Except, for those reading carefully, my post was never intended as a critique of Foucault, merely as a notice of a review of a critique, which review, as I noted, had a somewhat tinny, cliched ring to it, and which critique, as I also observed - quoting a hostile review - badly misreads Discipline and Punish.

The general conservative trope is not BS, as witness the numerous alliances of European left-wing political factions with ostensibly "moderate" Islamist groups; the numerous admonitions of Scandinavian elites that the native-born will simply have to acculturate themselves to the mores of the newcomers, alien, hostile, and repugnant though these may be; the remarks of leftish political figures in the Netherlands to the effect that Islamization, if only it occurs democratically, would be acceptable, even laudable, because openness to The Other is the highest precept of political morality; the lurid political correctness of the British, who, even after repeated terrorist assaults, connive at their Londonistan and glory in the fiction that every dogma is compatible with every other dogma; not to mention the prevalence of the risible fiction - indulged with particular vigour by the French - that Islamic discontent can be mollified by affirmative action policies and economic opportunity.

The question is whether, and if so, to what extent, this leftist tendency is applicable to Foucault. Afary and Anderson appear to botched their case; it does not follow that certain sectors of the left haven't connived at Islamism.

Except, for those reading carefully, my post was never intended as a critique of Foucault, merely as a notice of a review of a critique, which review, as I noted, had a somewhat tinny, cliched ring to it, and which critique, as I also observed - quoting a hostile review - badly misreads Discipline and Punish.

That's disingenuous of you. The critique is hostile, and you want to use the critique to "illuminate something about the further reaches of the left."

It's hardly a neutral post.

Actually, it is ambivalent, not disingenuous. And there is a conditional in my last sentence: if there is anything to Afary and Anderson's critique, which certainly seems to be flawed, then it would tell us something about a stratum of the left - a stratum for knowledge of which we don't necessarily need Foucault. Foucault merely would be something extra, if anything from that critique actually panned out.

Since Foucault's essays on the Iranian Revolution have only now been translated into English, with the publication of the Afary and Anderson volume, I cannot justly do more than express that ambivalence.

"The general conservative trope is not BS, as witness the numerous alliances of European left-wing political factions with ostensibly 'moderate' Islamist groups; the numerous admonitions of Scandinavian elites that the native-born will simply have to acculturate themselves to the mores of the newcomers, alien, hostile, and repugnant though these may be...the lurid political correctness of the British, who, even after repeated terrorist assaults, connive at their Londonistan and glory in the fiction that every dogma is compatible with every other dogma; not to mention the prevalence of the risible fiction - indulged with particular vigour by the French - that Islamic discontent can be mollified by affirmative action policies and economic opportunity."

I don't care tuppence about Foucault, and the less I have to do with him the better. But to all of this I say a hearty "Amen." The alliance of the Left with the Islamists is one of the weirdest things to come out of the early 21st century, but that it is happening is undeniable.

The alliance of the Left with the Islamists is one of the weirdest things to come out of the early 21st century, but that it is happening is undeniable.

I suppose it is a matter of perspective. It strikes me as a textbook case of plus ca change. It isn't as though tomorrow's leftists won't exterminate the Moslems (by changing them into liberal supermen if possible; by other means if that is not possible) once they are no longer useful as a chastising rod against the remnants of Christendom.

I think in terms of sheer probabilities, the extermination is more likely to go the other way. Would the leftists _like_ to "exterminate" the Islamists? Perhaps. Some of them. I think a dhimmi mindset could develop (and to some extent has developed) where even attempting to change them into liberal supermen is virtually unthinkable. The love of the Leftists for "the other"--"anything but Christianity," "multiculturalism," etc.--is creepy and very nearly suicidal. I'm not sure it's something that can be or will be switched off overnight. The Muslims have no such strange feelings of attraction towards the Left to slow them down.

Actually, it is ambivalent, not disingenuous.

Fair enough. But you can see how I'd be confused by a drop of ambivalence in a sea of hostility.

The love of the Leftists for "the other"--"anything but Christianity," "multiculturalism," etc.--is creepy and very nearly suicidal.

I think it is badly mistaken to see it as "love". The Left loves the free and equal superman, and nobody else, because nobody else is even fully human. The "other" is a better candidate for superman than the oppressor-untermensch simply because the oppressor-untermensch has already been written off, and as long as the "other" seems to be an ally in the extermination of the oppressor-untermensch he remains at least a candidate for (super) humanity. The "other" is different from the untermensch and thus is not obviously excluded from being fully human.

Moslems aren't the Left's political enemy yet because Moslem's have not caused the Left any pain as yet.

In short, I think you underestimate the willingness of radical forms of liberalism to exterminate the oppressor-untermensch - the subhuman who is holding back the superman - once he has been identified as such. As evidence of that willingness I give you the tens of millions of untermenschen murdered by Communism. Thinking that the Moslems are immune simply because of their current alliance with the Left is I think very much a mistake.

I think it won't come to that (the leftists turning around and trying to exterminate the Muslims). I don't know if this makes me a pessimist or an optimist. Maybe just a cynic. The point is that in Europe, where the history of this is being written a couple of steps ahead of our own, it's already looking like it's too late for the Left to do anything but grovel. And groveling they are. In many of the contexts, example after example that I could give, Christians aren't even in the picture. It's a straightforward negotiation between the leftists in governmental positions and the Islamists, and the Islamists win round after round, with the leftists thinking that maybe if they grovel more abjectly, make more appeasement moves, they can avoid more bombs, murders, etc.

Here's just one of a bunch of examples: After the Glasgow airport attack attempts by several Muslim doctors, the Scottish regional medical powers that be (who are government, in the UK) told all medical employees that they can't eat at their desks during Ramadan for fear of offending Muslim fellow-workers. It was _expressly_ stated _by_ the people making this rule that this was in response to the Glasgow attacks, was an attempt at "sensitivity" in the wake of those. Now, the people inconvenienced by this rule are at least as likely to be pagan as Christian. More likely. It had nothing to do with using the Muslims against the Christians. It was just, "See, we'll make everybody bow down to your religion indirectly. Pleeeease don't try to blow us up anymore, okay?"

Haven't caused the left any pain yet? Are you kidding? Murders of leftist film-makers, gangs raping immodestly dressed girls in Western countries from Sweden to Australia, turning public kindergartens in Northern Europe into little madrassahs. I could go on and on. The Muslims attack and show their contempt for liberal ideals at every turn, and the leftist-controlled government agencies are more or less in a dither trying to figure out what to do. There are whole social bureaus in countries like Brussels dedicated to trying to "reach out" to them, and they get nowhere, but the male "Asian" workers in the social bureaus refuse to talk to the female, Western workers. And this is not to mention the rioting and car-burning in France, which really was quite a pain for its liberal government. In countless little ways and big the Muslims are causing the left all _sorts_ of trouble all over the world.

If the Leftists in Europe haven't figured out yet that the Muslims among them are much worse candidates than their (mostly quiescent, unproblematic, and politically irrelevant) Christian population for being turned into "liberal supermen," they are even stupider than I thought.

But if they haven't figured that out, it'll be too late by the time they do.

Haven't caused the left any pain yet? Are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. Conditions in Europistan right now are a far cry from conditions in Russia in 1917 or in the Weimar Republic in 1930. The average European is far more likely to be pasted to the highway divider in his Smart Car than be killed or in any way harrassed by a Moslem. When the Left itself believes itself to be under an existential threat, you can count on all manner of hellfire being unleashed.

If you want to see the new and improved Auschwitz you will have to wait until the European Chattering Classes are standing in bread lines, not worrying about whether they might have to shorten the trip to the south of France to be able to afford the boob job. But see it you will, mark my words.

"The average European is far more likely to be pasted to the highway divider in his Smart Car than be killed or in any way harrassed by a Moslem."

Well, I can't claim to have run statistics, but I can't help feeling that you haven't read enough web sites on how much "harrassing in any way" is going on of average Europeans by Muslims. Of course, a lot depends on how much more likely is "far more likely." Moreover, it's kind of apples and oranges, isn't it? Speaking for myself, I'd rather have my daughter pasted to the side of a highway divider in an auto accident than gang raped. We certainly have a situation where average Europeans are being beaten up, screamed at, threatened, raped, intimidated, and murdered, by Muslims (gangs, in a number of cases), with ever-increasing frequency when they are going about their daily business on streets, in schools, etc. The legal systems are being forced to bend. Even judges are being harassed with lawsuits for refusal to allow women to testify without showing their faces. There are neighborhoods in Sweden or Denmark (I forget which of the two) where girls dye their hair brown so as not to be thought European, and whole neighborhoods in various cities that are no-go areas and where sharia has more pull than the law of the land. Beaches in Sydney are a good deal less safe than they were some years back, and the reason is not Buddhism nor liberalism. I daresay that the successful bombing of a few buses here and some trains there accounts for fewer lives and injuries in a year than accidents on the autobahn, but the former certainly manage to give the feeling of a more serious threat, and rightly and understandably so.

The foreign and domestic policy of these countries is already being influenced by sheer, craven fear of the people whom you seem to think will suddenly be the pitiable mass victims of liberal overlords in the foreseeable future when the slumbering Leftist Leviathan wakes up. I don't see it happening.

...but I can't help feeling that you haven't read enough web sites on how much "harrassing in any way" is going on of average Europeans by Muslims.

When I was in Europe for three weeks not long ago, I don't recall once seeing a single Moslem. Granted I didn't go spend time in the bad parts of the cities; but then neither do the European chattering classes. There is simply no comparison between Europe right now and 1917 Russia or 1930 Weimar Germany. The Moslem threat is as real to European leftists right now as global warming is to American libertarians. How people behave when we sit in our comfy chairs thinking they have a future of pain coming and they think we are making it up or grossly exagerrating it just to grab power is entirely different from how they behave when the pain has arrived and is undeniably of existential import. And every political ideology speaks the universal human language of pain once the metal meets the meat.

European leftists will be just as dhimmi as they want to be, until they decide that they can't afford the luxury of being dhimmi.

Granted, if "soft" dhimmitude goes on long enough and the narccisists can be kept fat and happy in the meantime, the Moslems may emerge the Morlocks of this tale. But that is far from the only possible outcome here. That someone is likely to face extermination if saner adult minds don't enter the picture is true. But who precisely it is who will face extermination is far from determined at this point.

I s'pose we should hope we're both wrong, as we're both making highly unpleasant predictions. And I do hope that.

About the kinds of prose . . . there are two more that should be mentioned, which are rhetorical.

Some writers are expressly difficult or technically exuberant (neither on account of the subject matter nor for their inability to be lucid) to be foreign. The prose is code for membership.

Other writers may be expressly complex (neither on account of the subject matter nor for their inability to be lucid) to garner attention and in that way solicit membership. Kant falls in this category, I think.

I s'pose we should hope we're both wrong, as we're both making highly unpleasant predictions. And I do hope that.

Amen to that.

Readers may wish to spend an idle moment sniggering in a puerile fashion on reading my piece on Foucault and other postmodern metatwaddle here.

Or not.

Mary Jackson - many thanks: a very entertaining piece.

The "postmodernism generator" is a great discovery, by the way.