Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HAB:] Addendum Re: Power [Ali]


Ali,

I would think that the complementarity and valud of
Foucault vis-a-vis Habermas would be a calling for your
work, not something you should expect others to find
obvious. I'm quite open-minded about Foucault's value; I
know very well that I don't know Foucault's work well. But
from what I see, I take a view. Perhaps others'
misunderstanding can be a resource for your own
presentations, rather than an insult to Foucault (if that's
what it seems). I saw enough of Foucault when he lived in
Berkeley. His stridency and arrogance compared poorly with
Habermas' graciousness.

Gary


--- Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ali,
> 
> the objection is that your quote conveyed a one-sided
> sense
> of power, begging the question of the relationship of
> strategical action to legitimate power. Inasmuch as the
> small quote misrepresents Foucault, then what's the
> point?
> It's certainly invalid to absolutely counterpose Foucault
> and Habermas, as your quoted Foucault subscriber
> evidently
> does. Foucault's view certainly doesn't add to
> understanding power. If anything, it shows further that,
> had Foucault not died relatively young, his convergence
> with Habermas' mode of thinking would have been greater
> than the converse. Political-theoretically, Foucault just
> didn't mature his political thinking anywhere near to
> Habermas', at the time of their both being alive
> (mid-80s),
> and I don't see that Foucault's essentially
> deconstructive
> project helps much for understanding how legitimate power
> looks.
> 
> But again, I find their potential for
> complementarity---rather than counterposition---very
> attractive. But ultimately, I think that the
> complementarity is very supplemental for political
> thought;
> or, at least, I haven't seen much fruitfulness yet in the
> 
> complementarity. 
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> --- Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Gary,
> > 
> > Even if we accept your interpretation that Foucault's
> > conception of Power is 
> > strategic (I suppose by instrumental you do mean
> > strategic), what is wrong 
> > with the strategic conception of Power? Does Habermas
> > deny the existence of 
> > strategic relations? No! Does Foucault say that
> > stratetgic relations exhaust 
> > all relations? No!
> > 
> > So what is the objection exactly?
> > 
> > regards
> > ali
> > 
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
> > Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 
> > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> ---
> 
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---