BlogGalleryContact

"I write for users, not readers"

Rummaging in wikipedia, and think that these make for a good perspective on doing and thinking:
"The study of Foucault's thought is complicated because his ideas developed and changed over time. His ideas are best understood as different (but related) bodies of thought associated with each of his different major publications. Thus the Foucault who wrote Madness and Civilisation (1961) did not have quite the same set of ideas as the Foucault who wrote The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969); and the Foucault who wrote The History of Sexuality (1976-84) had developed an altogether new approach. As David Gauntlett (2002) explains:

"Of course, there's nothing wrong with Foucault changing his approach; in a 1982 interview, he remarked that 'When people say, "Well, you thought this a few years ago and now you say something else," my answer is… [laughs] "Well, do you think I have worked [hard] all those years to say the same thing and not to be changed?"' (2000: 131). This attitude to his own work fits well with his theoretical approach — that knowledge should transform the self. When asked in another 1982 interview if he was a philosopher, historian, structuralist, or Marxist, Foucault replied 'I don't feel that it is necessary to know exactly what I am. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning' (Martin, 1988: 9)."
(from David Gauntlett, 2002, Media, Gender and Identity, London: Routledge).

In a similar vein, Foucault preferred not to claim that he was presenting a coherent and timeless block of knowledge; rather, he said:

"I would like my books to be a kind of tool-box which others can rummage through to find a tool which they can use however they wish in their own area… I would like the little volume that I want to write on disciplinary systems to be useful to an educator, a warden, a magistrate, a conscientious objector. I don't write for an audience, I write for users, not readers."
(Michel Foucault, (1974) 'Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir' in Dits et Ecrits, t. II. Paris: Gallimard, 1994, pp. 523-4)."
Comments (6)  Permalink

comments

Shivam Vij @ 20.03.2006 15:09 CEST
When I read the title of this post in my RSS feed, I almost thought it was a quote of some Times of India marketing agent!
lida @ 05.05.2006 15:38 CEST
Plus ça change -
vide
"The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. "
emerson self-reliance
http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm
links of london sale @ 20.05.2010 04:22 CEST
Valentine s day is express approaching and men across the earth will start stress out about it links of london . Most men, however, cheap links of london delay awaiting the last jiffy to goods their Valentine s day gift discount links of london . This is because they re whichever dreamy, links of london sale languid or don t have any thoughts to make the day unusual. links of london uk Luckily, Valentine s day is a very painless incident to celebrate. links london Here are some tips to duck being the average Joe this year! links of london silver The two most communal gifts on Valentine s day plants and chocolates. links of london jewellery These are very common because links of london bracelet ladies like chocolate and flora are an image of honey. links of london charms It is definitely recommended to give one or, links of london Sweetie both of these gifts to your female
pengpeng @ 23.07.2010 07:51 CEST
<strong>pandora bracelets and charms</strong>
<strong>tiffany</strong>
<strong>tiffany jewellery sale</strong>
<strong>links of london charms</strong>
pengpeng @ 23.07.2010 07:52 CEST
<strong>links of london charm bracelets</strong>
<strong>links of london sweetie bracelet sale</strong>
<strong>authentic pandora beads</strong>
<strong>buy cheap tiffany</strong>
pengpeng @ 23.07.2010 07:52 CEST
<strong>links of london charm bracelet</strong>
<strong>authentic pandora beads</strong>
<strong>links of london friendship bracelet</strong>
<strong>ed hardy swimwear</strong>

add a comment

This blog is gravatar enabled.
Your email adress will never be published.
Comment spam will be deleted!

Name*
E-Mail
For Spammers Only
URL
Comment*
Notify me via E-Mail when new comments are made to this entry
Remember me (needs cookies)