First of all, it's "Brennen's recent outpouring" not Brennan, which happens
to be my name.  Secondly, the so-called discussion we're having isn't an
intellectual undertaking, no matter how one tries to present oneself.  I
think to invoke Foucault here is a joke; Foucault would have no more
participated in this discussion than Pound would have.  What we see being
effected  is the kind of bogus leveling so characteristic of the worst of
postmodernism.  The implication is that both sides have equal standing, and
that only if those on either side could shed their rigid bias, then a
meaningful discussion could take place.  Ignore history, ignore facts, ignore
the obvious sentimental overtures and above all ignore the fact that
Foucault, of all people, could see through bullshit.

U.S. foreign policy has a history.  To point out this history is not to
engage in polemics.  To be passionate in one's presentation is not, ipso
facto, polemical.  Indeed, to express anger at the appropriate time is not
polemical.

To interject commentary as that shown below is to turn the focus away from
the facts of the matter.  Foucault shouldn't be quoted as if he is a hammer
to smack someone with.  Nor should he be quoted as a way of avoiding the
specifics.  What it leads to is "well, there's something wrong with your
argument because you're name-calling."  But what if the name fits?  For
better or for worse, one might discuss specific instances as to whether or
not the name fits -- is Lukas a jingoist, or not?  But to arbitrarily dismiss
the argument, for that's what it is, in favor of a theoretical precept that
may or may not apply to the conversation hardly seems like a useful way to
go.

The most rewarding disputation, in my experience, is that which engages the
issues.  If you think that someone is biased, then you should point to the
specifics of the argument.  If you think that Lukas has made valid points, or
that Brennan has not, you should say what they are -- that is, you should
take the intellectual risk, as opposed to hiding behind what Foucault, or
anyone else, says.  That's what I did: Lukas made what I think are some
sentimental and historically inaccurate claims, and I disputed them.  Now he
says that he was just playing the devil's advocate to stimulate conversation.
 Should we ignore that those opinions mirror the official line we are handed
everyday by the mainstream media, for whom Mr. Lukas works?  Look, if you
really want to get some use out of Foucault, then to the extent that you are
able, apply his methodology in the way that he did -- i.e., in the same way
that he examined what it meant to be a doctor in the 19th or 20th century,
what does it mean to be an employee of a major media outlet like USA Today?
You might be surprised at what you find.

jb...

In a message dated 02/16/2003 1:19:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> Brennan's recent outpouring of self-hate shouldn't really be taken at
> face value.  When he talks about his "cancerous respect for democracy,
> free speech, and worst of all, free enterprise", he seems to me to be
> playing a game whereby we who disagree with him (either by engaging his
> specific points or by simply calling him a jingoist) will recognize how
> far we are from the position of America-loving righteousness.  As for
> the people who dismiss him as a jingo, they have failed as well, in
> that they want mainly to stress their own a priori correctness as
> critics of American power.  In both cases, the discourse of this list
> suffers.
>
> Foucault made some comments on polemics that I find instructive: "In
> the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal
> elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in
> the discussion. . . Questions and answers depend on a game -- a game
> that is at once pleasant and difficult -- in which each of the two
> partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and
> by the accepted form of the dialogue.
>         The polemicist, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges
> that
> he possesses in advance and will never agree to question.  On
> principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making
> that struggle a just undertaking; that person he confronts is not a
> partner in the search for truth but an adversary, an enemy who is
> wrong, who is harmful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. .
> . his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a
> difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has
> been manifestly upholding from the beginning.  The polemicist relies on
> a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied."
>
> I recommend this not because it is by Foucault and so somehow sacred.
> It applies, it seems to me, to numerous moments on this list when
> polemics become "a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to
> the search for truth."  Calling someone a jingo is to assume from the
> outset that they're too blinkered by ideology to even process sentences
> for the truth they might point at.  In the same way, someone announcing
> disingenuously that he "ponder[s] self-flagellation" as a cure for his
> deep respect for democratic ideals is attempting to accuse his enemies
> of disrespecting something sacrosanct..
>
> American policies and their consequences for other countries are not
> obviously one thing or another, obviously good and benevolent, or
> obviously malicious and mean-spirited.  To find out the character of
> American interventions on foreign soil, people inclined to polemicize
> ought to hold their tongues, and consider what they have already taken
> for granted.
>
> I appreciate this list.  That does not mean however that I want to
> invite everyone to my lovely Oak Park apartment and sit them down for
> wife-made cookies.  I'll settle for thoughful, non-self-pitying,
> non-manipulative discussion.
>
> Happy Sunday to all,
> Jon
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 08:26  PM, Brennen Lukas wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, I am ashamed of my jingoist blithering. Last night I wept
> > openly as so many of you made clear that my soul is corrupted by an
> > unnatural urge to question the efficacy of pacifism in world affairs.
> > Even
> > now, I ponder self-flagellation. If only painful lashes across my back
> > would
> > rid me of my cancerous respect for democracy, free speech, and worst
> > of all,
> > free enterprise. Alas, I fear I am beyond repair, quite unworthy of
> > cleaning
> > Ezra Pound's sanatorium bedpan, let along posting to a list serve
> > dedicated
> > to his work.
>





They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.

Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency
to render the head too large for the body.  A standing military
force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe.
companions to liberty.  -- Thomas Jefferson


"America is a quarter of a billion people totally misinformed and disinformed
by their government. This is tragic but our media is -- I wouldn't even say
corrupt -- it's just beyond telling us anything that the government doesn't
want us to know."

Gore Vidal