Have shocked myself today by not just reading mountains of Asad, Bacon, Foucault, Geertz, and others, but actually getting wrapped up in the modes of scholarly discourse and the politics they assume. It turns out that I, too, am vulnerable to Foucault’s scholarly élan… I feel like I need a shower for saying that.
You see, I always assumed that guys like Foucault worked on the “Emperor’s New Clothes” premise. That is, they were only popular because their reputations saved them from people screaming “What the hell?” every time their theories were aired. That people (like me) who didn’t understand him would be so worried that others would think them stupid they clammed up and pretended to admire the bull. Further, that everyone in the academic world did the same thing. That none of us actually saw those damned new robes, but we were all too scared to admit it.
Well, I still believe that in part. Some of Foucault’s ideas seem half-baked at best, and you can almost tell the places in which he is just cruising. In other places, however, he is as lucid and correct as anything written in the last century. The central thing is to find a balance: Don’t be intimidated by the name. Read him until you get angry and call him all sorts of dirty names, and then let him slowly begin to speak to you as a man, not as a philosophy god.
Always remember: Foucault ate, drank, and pissed the same as everyone else. (Actually not like EVERYONE else- I mean, he was French).
It took Talal Asad to bring me to this new road in my career. Asad is clear, deliberate and insightful- some of the best theory I’ve ever read. He makes Foucault clearer because his work represents a practical way of using the philosophy for scholarly use. He applies Foucault’s oftentimes abstracted ideas of power and the genealogy of thought to the way in which past scholars have discussed religion, and suddenly I have the strangest feeling that I actually get Foucault. Worse than that, I am actually beginning to enjoy it all.
Bless you, Asad. If, as my prof says, one needs to understand Foucault at this level to survive, you may have saved my life.
6 comments:
I ran into your post from a google search. I am currently reading _Formation of the Secular_. I am curious what you thought of his idea of secular as a tragic category rather than rational.
WOW! I never expected such a serious question... Nor one to appear in March 2006 (this post is from October 2005).
Well, I agree with him that there is nothing rational or natural about the construction of the "secular."
Secular ideals are ones that are trying desperately to knock religion, but they are clearly Protestantism stripped of its deism.
I will think about your question...
How are you liking _Formations_?
I agree with you, he is very insightful and clear. But I don't have enough background to really appreciate or understand some of his argument. I haven't read many of Foucault yet. So it will take some time. But I share some of the concern he is discussing -- particularly assimilation of muslim immigrants in Europe.
Asad has helped me put some things in order. Especially concerns I have long held about the ways in which Judaism has been changed (some would say warped) by Western ideals of "religion."
I think many of the concerns here are similar with Muslims and Jews. Both have traditions in which constant mindfulness is a part of every day life, not a "church-like" system. I know that Buddhists and Hindus are also facing these issues.
When one forces "religion" into one day a week, or holidays, and separates it mentally from your "regular life" it changes the culture and the people.
Religious tolerance and pluralism does not require complete secularization of people, just a better emphasis on courtesy, and upon the peaceful notions already inherent in most religions, any way.
And the way the west has convinced itself that secularism is the only way to peace sickens me. Frankly the use of "liberal secularism" in attacks against Muslims is no better than medieval Christian attacks on Islam, only now they can make everyone believe it is done for the good of those Muslims.
This is particularly heinous when done on behalf of Muslim women, as if they have no say in the matter.
Have you read Saba Mahmood's book, The Politics of Piety?
Wonderful book, and uses Asad in a very critical way.
It opened up a lot for me in terms of how to employ Asad.
And, yes, Foucault is essential (for good or bad). _Discipline and Punish_ and _History of Sexuality_ and _History of Madness_ are all classics. His little book _On Authorship_ is a very good (and short) way to get into him.
He is dense and hard to understand. I don't know if he is better in the original French or not, but possibly.
I checked out your blog and have been enjoying it quite a lot.
Asad has helped me put some things in order. Especially concerns I have long held about the ways in which Judaism has been changed (some would say warped) by Western ideals of "religion."
Ya, I am trying to address similar concerns. Even though I don't practice Islam, but to understand current socio political situation I think we need criticallly approach both secular and dogmatic ideologies.
Religious tolerance and pluralism does not require complete secularization of people, just a better emphasis on courtesy, and upon the peaceful notions already inherent in most religions, any way.
I agree. I read _End of Faith_ by Sam Harris few months ago. That sort of prompted to research more on secularization. Even though I agreed with his conclusion about Spirituality, I failed to see religion is the main root of all evil. That sort of makes the focus narrow and overlooks power as Asad mentioned.
I will check out Saba Mahmood. I am waiting for _Genealogie of Religion_. That should be a good read too. I added your blog to my reader.
I found _Genealogies_ much better than _Formations_. _Genealogies_ is on my PhD comp exam list, so it has clearly become a classic in the field of cultural anthropology and religious theory.
What I like is the way Asad points out that secularism is an ideological framework with its own history, discourse, and, yes, dogma.
In _Genealogies_ he is in dialogue with Clifford Geertz the anthropologist. He has a great critique on the internalization of religion (as in faith being seen as more important than practice in western scholarship). However, Geertz is worth reading, too, for some of his work.
Asad gives the impression that Geertz is worthless, but, read together, they provide a really good foundation for anthro studies.
I will be adding your blog to my links list. Lots of good food for thought in there.
And it sounds to me like you already have a pretty good background in Foucault, judging by what you've read.
Post a Comment