- NEW!
by Sgt. Widget will die from finals on February 27th, 2008
Help answer this question below.
by iwnit on February 28th, 2008
Do you mean this one:
"Michel Foucault (pronounced [miʃɛl fuko]) (October 15, 1926–June 25, 1984) was a French philosopher, historian, critic and sociologist. He held a chair at the Collège de France, giving it the title "History of Systems of Thought," and taught at the University of California, Berkeley.
Michel Foucault is best known for his critical studies of various social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine, the human sciences, and the prison system, as well as for his work on the history of human sexuality. Foucault's work on power, and the relationships among power, knowledge, and discourse, has been widely discussed and applied. Sometimes described as postmodernist or post-structuralist, in the 1960s he was more often associated with the structuralist movement. Foucault later distanced himself from structuralism and always rejected the post-structuralist and postmodernist labels."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
Michel Foucault is dead, so hating him does not bring much.
I, for my part, consider him as one of the most interesting philosophers of the last century, I like him.
I could only understand people hating him if they *had* to study him at school. Anyway, all French people are pretentious, so it would be a surprise if he were not...
;-)
by Halskiisaklink on February 28th, 2008
No, I quite like him and his pretentiousness. It brings back good memories, and I enjoy reading his work.
by zocotroco on February 28th, 2008
Oh my god, I absolutely despise Michel Foucault. He's always mentioned a lot in my Uni modules (power and knowledge stuff) - can't stand him!
by NCJake on December 29th, 2008
Nope, no way. I don't even find him pretentious. On the other hand I don't care for Heidegger, so I could join you in disliking him.
by hemingway00 on June 16th, 2008
Foucault is not pretentious. No pretentious individual I know or know of is obsessed with Flaubert's tendency towards creating pastiche, collage literature.
The best men ever were philosophers. Agree or disagree?
by anon on November 4th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Why i am here?
by Raviteja_M on November 11th, 2010
| 5 people like this
Is the "meaning of life" different for each individual, or is it constant for all human beings?
by dredgegolgari on November 17th, 2010
| 3 people like this
Can the human mind, body and spirit work completely independently of one another ?
by basilthemouse on December 15th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Have you found self, who you are? At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want( lao Tzu)
by shunyata on October 31st, 2010
| 2 people like this
You're reading I hate Michel Foucault. Would anyone like to join me in hating his pretentiousness?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Yes. That one. And yes, I did have to study him. And by 'did' I mean 'that reading assignment was part of yesterday's class and will be relevant to my upcoming paper.' Hate. Hate hate hate. He talks in circles and makes no sense whatsoever and it gets called awesome literary criticism/philosophy/sociology. Hate.
by Sgt. Widget will die from finals on February 28th, 2008
sgtwidget: it is a shame that the school system sometimes seems to pursue the goal of disgusting us from learning. I can assure you that Michel Foulcault is a brillant thinker. But it would be better not to have to study him, and rather do it freely.
by iwnit on February 28th, 2008
I have an entire English Department who would love to assure me that he's brilliant. He is brilliant. He's also a pretentious ass. The two are not mutually exclusive and for me, he's so busy indulging the pretentious part of his personality in his writing that I find it somewhere between difficult and impossible to appreciate the brilliance lurking at the bottom of his very convoluted explanations. I should not have to dig through the first three paragraphs of a chapter for half an hour looking for a thesis statement.
by Sgt. Widget will die from finals on February 28th, 2008
sgtwidget: I have been reading some of his texts in original (I am French). Maybe it could be also a translation problem...
Good luck for your study!
by iwnit on February 28th, 2008
iwnit: It could definitely be a translation problem. I know French has some linguistic constructions that sound very archaic if translated into English literally, but are used every day in modern French. Oddly enough, I personally tend towards New Historicist views in my paper writing and Foucault is a big name in that field. My dislike for him may also have to do with the fact that a lot of the things he discusses at length I take as a given. You say that a piece of literature is a product of its time? Well duh. You say it should be interpreted with consideration given to the cultural atmosphere of the time? Again, duh. I don't need a 300 page book to prove that. But apparently some people do, because otherwise Foucault wouldn't be required reading in Comp. Lit. courses.
by Sgt. Widget will die from finals on February 28th, 2008
sgtwidget: please consider he was born in 1926, and died in 1984. Many people like him because he made a lot for the progression of society in France in the last third of the 20th century.
On the other side, I recognized after leaving France the self centeredness of a particular French intellectual elite. This is sometimes annoying for a foreigner...
by iwnit on February 28th, 2008
iwnit - Point I should make here: Foucault is by no means the only pretentious scholar out there, from that time period or any other. I'm not fond of other pretentious scholars, either. Reading Marxist theory on how economics led to the downfall of Rome made me want to burn something - preferably my reading. I know Foucault did some great work. But he was so pretentious about it along the way and that's what drives me up the wall. And that could be the wording of my translation and I could possibly be hating on the translator and not realizing it. Self-centered I can deal with. It's unnecessary academic snobbery that I don't like.
by Sgt. Widget will die from finals on February 28th, 2008
sgtwidget: I don't like it either, but I did not really noticed this by him. Here you can find some information about his terminology, maybe it could help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#Terminology
by iwnit on February 28th, 2008
iwnit: I can pick apart his terminology if I need to, though creating your own vocabulary does strike me as excessively pedantic. It's the convoluted sentences, among other things, that I dislike. I just got through reading a lecture on liminal spaces, heterotopias, and placing the body and he dives into this elaborate explanation of how a mirror creates one of these heterotopias. And the term 'heterotopia' isn't what's causing the problem, it's how his example is virtually incomprehensible. He uses a huge amount of unnecessary academic jargon and takes forever to get to the point. His example could have been much shorter and more reader-friendly without losing any of its substance.
by Sgt. Widget will die from finals on February 28th, 2008