murdermetonymy said: ?
I’ve been doing some readings in American history and almost every time a historian invokes Foucault, it is to say something like “and of course knowledge and power are linked.” which really doesn’t say much outside of letting other historians know that they’ve at least read Foucault. Basically, it seems to me that a lot of historians (and this seems to be especially true of historians who write about American history) only use theorists such as Gramsci and Foucault to signify to other historians that they’ve read them, not that they have actually engaged with them.
Basically, I think history needs more people like Ann Laura Stoler, who takes Foucault seriously and actually engages critically with the work. This is also partially a reaction to the way Foucault and theorists are taught at my university, where it is often more of the case where “We’re reading Foucault so we can said we’ve read Foucault, add him in our bibliography for our thesis, and move on.” There’s very little attempt to take theory seriously.
murdermetonymy replied to your post: murdermetonymy replied to your post: According to…
thats weird because Foucault was myopically pro IRI re: Iran
Have you read Foucault and the Iranian Revolution? I’ve read some very polarized reviews on it.
But the Annales school was also so cool for its time
The early Annales school was. I dislike Braudel and the third stage is all over the place.
Still, it’s one of those things every historian has to know and at least say “Hey, that’s why we can talk about the environment, society, and other stuff.”
he’s benedict anderson’s brother btw. but ya. he’s interesting. certain cool passages in his book on “pomo”
Yeah, I’m more familiar with Benedict Anderson, because he’s basically required reading in any historiography class.
I’ll have to check out that book.