Jump to content

Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Foucault and Homosexuality

This article has been tagged as relating to Wikiprojects LGBT studies, yet there is no mention of Foucault's contribution to queer discourse and queer theory.

Microswitch (talk)

The Lectures: An Expansion

I've been/will be working on expanding the sections on his lectures at the College de France. There seems to be a plethora of summaries of his major works, but so little on his lectures, which seems to be a major disservice. If anyone else can help, please do - these are an under-appreciated series of texts!

My single brief edit so far has been the addition of the following under "Society Must Be Defended."

In this course, Foucault analyzes the historical and political discourse of "race struggle". The series of weekly lecture notes begins with a brief overview of Foucault's accounts of "sovereign" and "disciplinary" power, and begins to contextualize these concepts in terms of the race struggle. Although using the language of "race," Foucault did not necessarily intend for the term to refer to conventional concepts of race, such as caucasian and negro. Rather, the term more accurately refers to a particular type of demographic that can include, among many other factors, racial identity as well as nationality. By the end of the lectures, however, ideas that would later become Foucault's theories of biopower and governmentality emerge. These concepts would be further developed in "Security, Territory, Population." In addition, Foucault's work on biopower would be picked up and heavily expanded and modified by Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben.

Kevin Duong (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

♦♠

I am replacing Image:Foucault Bachelard.png with Image:Un dessin de Foucault.jpg on the grounds that the latter is free-use (in fact PD) and a fair use rationale for the former photo (which isn't there yet) would include the statement that no free-use image was available. I'm just wondering what Foucault would make of the Wikipedia image policy :-)))) --Simon Speed (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a new image of Foucault; it's really a shame that this article has no lead photo.Grunge6910 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

RichardLord edits

Richardlord50 keeps adding an original essay to the Criticism section. This needs to be removed but I'm not going to edit war -- Richard please explain your edit? I wrote on his talk page so he should get the message and come here. csloat (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in the criticism section because I felt that there was need for some more new material the new material that is now available is astounding and it is a travisty if it does'nt get a hearing.Please allow at least the Wikipedia readership to be the judge on what is relavent and what is not relavent(and there is proof sourced).Can you prove WITHOUT DOUBT it is an original essay?Richardlord50 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also in the Sources section those are my sources and without the relavent souces pointing to the article the reader will be in the dark.In other wards I wrote those sources and seems odd that Wikipedia keeps those sources but removes the rest of the article.It seems to me you keep what you like and anything you dislike gets the chop.Why have you kept my sources and removed the article that points to the sources?Richardlord50 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you let me get on with the business of writting new material and I repeat again it is truly staggering some of this material,e.g.Have you ever heard of a journal called Risk Analysis?Richardlord50 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is room for new,fresh material on Wikipedia all I ask is the chance to express it.Richardlord50 (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of a criticism section in an encyclopedia article. Is there a criticism section in the article on the Declaration of Independence? Many scholars have criticized it for it various reasons. Same for Sammy Davis Jr. -- lots of critics have criticized his music. How is that relevant? It appears that RichardLord is merely attempting to prove that Foucault was "wrong." The article should merely present Foucault's ideas and neither advocate them nor criticize them. Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ashe. Not even Sartre's page has a section for criticism and it doesn't present arguments for or against Sartre's work. Same with the pages for many of the other philosophers on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote on obscurantism

I think this quote from the book Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett should be placed in the article, although I don't know where:

John Searle once told me about a conversation he had with the late Michel Foucault: "Michel, you're so clear in conversation; why is your written work so obscure?" To which Michel replied, "That's because, in order to be taken seriously by French philosophers, twenty-five percent of what you write has to be impenetrable nonsense." I have coined a term for this tactic, in honor of Foucault's candor: eumerdification.

The quote is from page 405.--130.243.208.137 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Has John Searle actually published this information? It seems a little weird to include third-hand gossip from a much lesser known scholar masquerading as a direct quotation. If there was some evidence that Dennett's term "eumerdification" was in use among other scholars it might also establish notability. But it sounds like Foucault made a joke that Searle quoted out of context to Dennett, who treated Foucault's joshing as "candor." It's kind of a silly debate to me -- one could equally criticize Searle of "impenetrable nonsense" if one is not familiar with the vocabulary and conventions from which he writes. And Foucault is downright lucid in this light when compared to the other "French philosophers" who get lumped into the "impenetrable" crowd -- Lacan, Derrida, Baudrillard, etc. csloat (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumb Picture

What on earth is with that dumb drawing of Foucault that has been added to the article? Can't a real photograph be used, instead of a silly, cutesy drawing? Skoojal (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section

In addition to being unacceptably brief, this section is entirely unsourced, and I have moved it here until it can be improved to an acceptable level:

Click show to view

Terms coined or partially redefined by Foucault, as translated into English:

the skomorokh 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This section should be restored -- each of the terms is a link to a separate Wikipedia article; there is no need to duplicate sources here when they are a simple click away. Or these should be under "see also," but it is unacceptable to delete these links entirely, IMHO. csloat (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual contexts/influences section

I have removed the Intellectual contexts section. The first subsection is an underreferenced (bad) list (bad), and the second section contains only unreliable references (search results are not reliable sources). This material can be reintroduced if it can be converted to reliably sourced prose.

Intellectual contexts
Influences on Foucault's work

Thinkers whose work has apparently or admittedly had a strong impact on Foucault's thought include:

  • Annales School — A French school of historical writing which influenced Foucault early in his intellectual life.
  • Louis Althusser — French structuralist Marxist philosopher and Foucault's sometime teacher and mentor.
  • Roland Barthes — French (post) structuralist literary critic who was at one time very close to Foucault.
  • Georges Bataille — French philosopher, novelist and critic whose views on transgression, communication, and sexuality were very influential in Foucault's work.
  • Maurice Blanchot — Literary critic and novelist whose views on non polemical critique had a strong impact on Foucault
  • Jorge Luis Borges — Argentine author of short stories frequently referred to in Foucault's Works
  • Georges Canguilhem — Author of The Normal and the Pathological and a major influence on Foucault's work on deviance and the medical sciences (cf. The Birth of the Clinic)
  • Georges Dumézil — French structuralist mythologist, known for his reconstruction of Indo-Aryan mythology.
  • Martin Heidegger — German philosopher whose influence was enormous in post-war France. Foucault rarely referred to him, but once stated 'For me Heidegger has always been the essential philosopher... My entire philosophical development was determined by my reading of Heidegger'.
  • Jean Hyppolite — French Hegel scholar and Foucault's sometime khâgne teacher.
  • Friedrich Nietzsche — German philosopher whose work greatly influenced Foucault's conception of society and power. Towards the end of his life, Foucault stated: "I am simply Nietzschean".[1] When criticising the use of the concept of "justice" in a debate with Noam Chomsky, Foucault said "I will be a little bit Nietzschean about this".[2]
Influence of Foucault's work

Foucault's work is frequently referred to in disciplines as diverse as art, architecture, philosophy, history, anthropology, geography, archaeology, communication studies, public relations, rhetoric, cultural studies, linguistics, sociology, education, psychology, literary theory, feminism, queer theory, management studies, the philosophy of science, political science, urban design, museum studies, and many others. Quantitative evidence of the impact of his work can be found in the sheer volume of citations in standard academic journal indexes such as the Social Sciences Citation Index (more than 9000 citations).[3] A keyword search of the Library of Congress catalogue reveals over 750 volumes in a variety of languages relating to his writings,[4] and a search on Google Scholar reveals thousands of citations.[5]

  1. ^ "The return of morality", in Politics, Philosophy, and Culture: interviews and other writings, 1977-1984, tr. Alan Sheridan, ed. Lawrence D. Kritzman, 1988, 251.
  2. ^ In "Human Nature: Justice versus Power", in Reflexive Water: The Basic Concerns of Mankind, ed. Fons Elders (London: Souvenir Press, 1974), p. 187.
  3. ^ "Social Sciences Citation Index - Scientific - Thomson Reuters". Isinet.com. Retrieved 2008-09-21.
  4. ^ "Titles List (Library of Congress Online Catalog)". Catalog.loc.gov. Retrieved 2008-09-21.
  5. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=michel+foucault

the skomorokh 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion?

The article mentions that Foucault was expelled from a Jesuit institution. It might not be of any importance-- disagreement or simple misbehavior for example. On the other hand, if he was expelled perhaps for an academic integrity issue I could see that as being fairly significant. Is there any indication as to why he was expelled? 152.15.104.249 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

add personal life, and criticism

for example: "he is an angry gay man, whose romantic views on psychology cannot be taken seriously."

....well, it needs some cleaning up and a more impartial view, but that is my main point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.14.104 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty terrible example, Mr. Anonymous IP Address. However, I think there should be a personal life section. As the article now stands, "Defert" is mentioned twice in passing, but is never properly introduced or even given a first name. As for Foucault's sexual behavior, while it may be inconsequential for many writers, Foucault wrote on the subject of sexuality, so I think it's pertinent to an article treating his ideas and work.Trinite (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The original intension of the removal may have been to integrate criticism into the article as a whole. However, the current article contain almost no criticism. Some can be found if you know where to look, that is going to linked article but such state of affair amount to POV content fork. I have no objection to eliminating the section, provided that criticism are properly integrated into this article. I also foresee several problems for achieving that. Certain critics such as Derrida or Chomsky did not make a criticism in particular. They made general attack on Foucault's project. Unless there is a section discussing the main thesis of Foucault, there is no where to integrate these criticism. Vapour (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

@Vapour. Thank you for restoring the excised matter. I, for one—having failed to keep up with matters Foucault in recent years—find it most useful. It seems to be adequately sourced, so I'm a little puzzled as to the grounds on which it was cut in the first place. My impression is that negative criticism of Foucault's scholarship has grown louder since his death, particularly of late (I recall a whole-page attack in the TLS recently); so this aspect of the subject requires adequate coverage.
Quite apart from the fact that WP discourages, rightly in my opinion, sub-sections labeled Criticism, my own view is that such a label inevitably introduces a tone of imprecision best avoided—in any historiographical, literary or even journalistic context any serious use of the term implies criticism of a positive as well as of a negative nature. I favour instead, where the copy in question can't readily be absorbed into the main body of an article, use of the label Controversy as more accurate and more neutral. I suggest that for the time being in this instance; in the (unlikely?) event of no dissenting voices, I would change it to that in a week or two.
One thing's for sure: the man himself would have raised an eyebrow or two at any attempt to turn him into some kind of countercultural icon above criticism. Any hint of such a phenomenon would seem, by Foucauldian (!) criteria, quite preposterous.

Wingspeed (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated (see above), an encyclopedia article is not a platform for "criticism." Are we going to add a criticism section to every article? How about the article on the trumpet? Some people don't like the sound of the trumpet. Some people have criticized it. So what? It is irrelevant. Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: I have added a new criticism section which relates to two of the more famous and fundamental arguments against Foucault by Habermas and Rorty. I'm not sure why the original section was removed, though I remember it being quite untidy. Just to note also, it shouldn't be the task of a criticism section to develop ab hominem attacks regarding the personal life of the individual. Might I suggest all critiques added in the future reference only the leading social theorists and philosophers? --Tomsega (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ashe the Cyborg: Of COURSE encyclopaedia articles are supposed to have cited and major criticisms, this is ridiculous. Actors and films have references to both good and bad reviews, scientific theories discuss various possible opinions, and almost all major philosophers and philosophies on wikipedia have a list of major criticisms. This is for balance and is highly important. I hope you aren't a Foucault fanatic who simply doesn't wish to see anything bad said about the man. I love Foucault, but his page still needs a brief list of major criticisms, if not simply to link people to rival theorists. I have taken the time to type up and reference two quotes from two of the most reputable theorists on the subject. It is clearly NOT 'pov'. If you do not agree with what I have written around that text, fine, alter it, or discuss it (but everything has to be interpreted somewhere along the line in order to be explained briefly). It is extremely discourteous to simply delete, with no explanation, large chunks of what took someone else time. Believe it or not I am an expert on the topic (not to blow my trumpet too much but y'know...). Thanks. --Tomsega (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Actors and films have references to both good and bad reviews..."

This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay. The goal of the encyclopedia is to present facts. "Criticism" sections are merely platforms for people to espouse their own opinions through the "sourced" opinions of others. It is fitting that you are implying that people need to hear the "other side" or something "negative" about the subject of the article as a means to achieving some sort of faux balance. You hit the nail on the head: this is exactly why criticism sections violate Wikipedia policy and are POV by definition. Criticism here is only intended as some sort of counterweight to some perceived bias in the article. If you believe the factual content of the article is biased, then change the biased content itself. Do not create another, utterly biased section of criticism as a counterbalance to other biased material. This is how the quality of Wikipedia degrades into a series of thinly disguised opinions. Re Foucault, I couldn't care less about him. View my contributions and you will see that I consistently address these POV criticism sections across many topics. Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Several other editors have previously addressed issues with a "criticism" section on this very page -- check the "RichardLord edits" section above. So, saying that there is no consensus for removing this type of section on this page is a little disingenuous. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note take two: notice how it was discussed, and when you came to the page it was still here? Im not saying that discussion shouldn't happen, but the blatent reversion to make a point only disrupts any attempts to actually incorperate the material.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections do not violate Wikipedia policy, however we always have to remember that Wikipedia is not journalism and the same supposed standards of balance do not apply here. So not every article requires critiques/rebuttals/reception sections. So the statement that other article do not have a criticism section and therefore this one should not, in itself is facetious. A figure such as Foucault attracted a great deal of criticism and it is wholly appropriate to include some, if following WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If possible, incorporating it into the main body is ideal, but if not, a section with an appropriate heading such as "reception" is acceptable. Edit warring is never acceptable, and there seems to be no consensus either way at the moment. As this is not a WP:BLP situation and the section in question in sourced, I think it should be left as is until a solid consensus is reached. freshacconci talktalk 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Good points Freshacconci. Per WP:Criticism the outstanding, major and unchanging problem of criticism sections is that they are fundamentally pov-forks. And although they don't breach policy per se they do lead to sections that breach policy by breaching WP:NPOV and/or WP:Coatrack. In a nutshell criticism should be integrated into the appropriate points of the rest of the article (ie the critical view of Foucualt's archeology should be in the section on archeology). Thus the critical view can be accorded appropriate weight whereas group critical content in one section a) disconnects the material from the article and b) causes weighting issues.
    In this instance all but the archeology section border being unfair use per Wikipedia:Quotations#Quotations_and_fair_use because of their length. The views should be summarized and moved to the appropriate part of the article--Cailil talk 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a perfect example of why criticism sections are rarely -- if ever -- warranted: "Certain theorists have questioned.." The criticism section in this article begins by using weasel words. "Certain theorists claim that Bush planned 9/11." "Certain theorists have questioned whether Obama is the anti-Christ." This is the kind of nonsense that criticism sections invite by their very nature. The fact that one can find "prominent" individuals who have criticized Foucault is really irrelevant. As Cailil pointed out, these sections invite all sorts of Wikipedia policy violations. I would obviously go further and argue that it isn't just the section that invites these problems, but the intent to incorporate criticism (subjective opinion by definition) into an article violates the law and spirit of Wikipedia. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"Certain theorists", to me, sounded less controversial than saying "two central criticisms levelled by two of the most highly-regarded names in this area of study" - which is in fact closer to the case. I think what you are forgetting, Ashe, is that to make almost any statement is to make one that is politicised or subjective (ironically we're moving into the realm of Foucauldian discourse here!). The article states that Foucault produced 'archaeologies of knowledge' or 'genealogies' as a method. Now, simply to state this without criticism is to suggest that this is indeed the state of affairs... when the criticisms are important to show that this might be rubbish, that it was only an 'archaeology' or a 'genealogy' because he described it as so, not for any real scientific method. Similarly an article could say "Derrida showed that language is unstable etc etc". Just stating it like that is not encyclopaedic, it's just bare and tautological. (BTW, Derrida has a massive criticism section...).
Again, the thing I'd reiterate is that criticisms are cited to big-name theorists. The fact that criticism sections tend to invoke POV is just unfortunate truism, something it is our job to try and stamp out - not something that proves there shouldn't be criticism sections altogether! The level of rigour you're aiming towards forgets that social science and philosophy, unlike noble science, only exists on the level of ideas - thus opinion, somewhere down the line!! --Tomsega (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Tomsega - if these criticisms are indeed so important they should be put in the section on archaeology so that they can be accorded appropriate weight. On the point about Derrida the argument that 'other stuff-like-this exists in other articles' doesn't wash. It's not that criticism sections "invoke POV" it is that criticism sections tend create violations of WP:COATRACK--Cailil talk 22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to imply something is okay just because another article does it, rather that if we concluded criticism sections were always unjustified, we'd have a massive job on our hands deleting them all. I wholeheartedly agree they can lead to wiki violations, but the answer is thus in the most credible possible references and restrictions on edits, not erasing them entirely.--Tomsega (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • @Tomsega "when the criticisms are important to show that this might be rubbish.." You are again illustrating the prime motivation for creating criticism sections in articles: the desire to prove that the subject of the article was "wrong" somehow. If you are concerned that the article claims that Foucault actually produced 'archaeologies of knowledge', then change the wording to something like "Foucault **claimed** that he produced 'archaeologies of knowledge'." That is all that is required. About your meta claim that "everything is subjective, so let's all just throw our hands up" -- without getting into a late-night dorm-room debate, we can all acknowledge that everything is from a certain point of view and to some degree subjective without abandoning our imperfect attempt to pursue a fact-based discourse that at least attempts to minimize overt biases. If you don't believe that, you really have no business editing encyclopedia articles -- unless you view it as a purely ironic exercise. On the Derrida article, I don't doubt it has a huge criticism section -- a lot of people don't like him and can't resist trying to prove he was wrong in a criticism section. As I already pointed out, if you have concerns about the article "legitimizing" the claims of certain philosophers, all you need to do is alter the wording of the article slightly. That would require little effort and would meet with little controversy. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny how everyone is mentioning that the criticisms should be incorporated into the body of the article, but there is more typing going on here on the ethicality of criticism sections than there is in either in the mainspace, or discussion on how it should be done. the problem here is that the criticisms mentioned tend to cover foucalt with a broad brush, and are not easily jucstiposed (spell checker failed me) into the body (with the exception of the one on archeology of knowledge). personally I think that the blanket condemnation of criticism sections is a legalistic and fundamentalist attitude which goes against WP:IAR . if the discussion can not move on how to incorporate this material into the body, then the criticism section should stand rather than violate WP:NPOV by ignoring what some high powered scholars view as fundamental flaws in the theory, and narrowing foucaults project into a incestuous dialogue rather than as a conversation with other scholars which got a response,Coffeepusher (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that you also view condemnation of POV material on Wikipedia as a "legalistic and fundamentalist" attitude. Re "high powered scholars view as fundamental flaws in the theory" -- 1) as soon as you go down this road, you are going to get into debates over who is a "high-powered scholar" and who isn't. 2) some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia article. This is not an essay on the merits and demerits of Foucault's philosophy, nor is it a literature review. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
actually no. I think that WP:NOTE covers that debate just fine. and again no, this is an encyclopedia article on a Continental philosopher and his contributions to continental philosophy, the controversy is part of that.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Coffeepusher is entirely reasonable here. Regarding the criticism section being within the body of text, I didn't quite know how to pull that off, and I purposefully selected two large quotes rather than putting it into my own words (to avoid POV!!) which wouldn't look great incorporated.
Ashe, I think you must judge each case as it comes. Are you going on principle or do you really think this criticism section here is point of view or weasel? Personally I think it's a very good example of what a well-cited and tidy criticism section should look like. Perhaps if you're a drive-by editor and not familiar with the topic, this is why Rorty and Habermas' key points - arguments that would appear in any good graduate essay - seem arbitrary to you.--Tomsega (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Coffepusher the policy covering this is WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT more specifically. The critical information on archaeology should be integrated into the last paragraph of the sub-section on archaeology (that's where the differences between Foucauldian concepts and structuralist ideas are also discussed).
The issue I pointed out with the quotes remains - they border on unfair use per WP:QUOTE (that becomes a copy-vio issue if not dealt with).
Also as a point of order WP articles are not essays - they aren't structured in an interrogatory or dialectical form - rather they are summaries/explainations of a subject/topic. If critical information is important it belongs in the appropriate section per NPOV not in another section containing all the contrary points which thus becomes a pov-section and violates NPOV and WP:Coatrack.
The policy end of this has been explained. You are not being asked to remove the information just to better integrate it. I suggest editors should work on finding a way to do so--Cailil talk 13:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Small problem there is that Foucault's 'Archaeology of Knowledge' was a general project, not just the title of one book! Whether or not the big quotes constitute a copy-vio, I've no idea. They're good quotes so it'd be a shame.--86.150.226.2 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I too am unsure how the quotes are violations of fair use. I read through WP:QUOTE and couldn't find the section you are referencing. as to undue weight, I actually think that a single quote from a post-neomarxist (what? I struggle to categorize Habermas just like everyone else) and a postmodernist fails to show the actually size of the differentiation between the Foucaultian vein of those groups and other influential veins (since Foucault geniologically is a post-neomarxist and is defiantly thrown into French postmodernism)(I know I Know, post structuralism too...and then he denied it...and then wrote books that people looked at and said "but you are" and he said "maybe"). Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's linked above Coffeepusher - here it is again Wikipedia:Quotations#Quotations_and_fair_use. The policy regarding due weight has been explained (put the material beside the other sourced info on the same topic so that it can be appropriately weighted) and if it is not complied with the current form of the material will have to be removed (without prejudice to it being appropriately reinstated). The problem with the material in question is not the content but its form and placement - as has been explained--Cailil talk 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I read it again. I still don't understand where the violation would occur (at least with the Habermas quotation, who had an awful lot to say about Foucault so the quotation does not provide undue substance or quantity, check out discourses of modernity). and as to the weight, since these criticisms are mostly against the project in its entirety, or due to its foundation placing the material after the project itself has been explained is appropriate, and would be out of place otherwise. So I don't believe that its form and placement provides undue weight, and unlike other criticism sections which do tend to become subsections to rip on a topic using fringe arguments, these are actual non-fringe criticisms that inform the project and are necessary to understand the topic (does foucault attempt to remain both Kantian and Nietzschean in his approach? well I would say Yes he does, but I wouldn't know that by reading the article without that quotation, and if it wasn't noted as a criticism I may not understand that there is a view that these two approaches are irreconcilable). additionally this criticism section hasn't been a dumping ground, and the community on the foucault page have been very good about keeping it concise and informative.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

so the last post was 4 days ago in what was a very active thread. I am going to remove the neutrality tag unless someone wishes to engage this discussion further.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You do not get to set time limits on POV templates or discussions. The dispute regarding this section has not been resolved. The POV template itself says not to remove it until the dispute is resolved. Do not set arbitrary time limits on discussion. Thanks. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
well you have not contributed to the discussion. your points have been responded to, and you ignored them. this leads me to believe that the only resolution that you will accept is the absolute acceptance of your position and the deletion of the criticism section otherwise you will maintain that the mainspace must be cluttered with a pov template...kina pov of you isn't it. either discuss the issues raised or go away. Don't troll the space ignoring that their may be another position available. you will notice that the other editors have also read Jimbo's statement about criticism sections but those of us in support of this section have specifically mentioned the contents of this page while those opposed have only mentioned the word criticism and have strategically ignored any reference to the actual material contained. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • either discuss the issues raised or go away You should really take your own advice. You should also avoid ad hominem attacks and try to address the points raised here -- which you have completely failed to address. Yelling about "fundamentalism" and "trolling" doesn't really bolster any of your arguments. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
nope, re read my comment. no ad hominem present. So if you aren't just taking control of the mainspace without respecting community participation, what points do you feel were not addressed by the community and why haven't you been working toward a solution?Coffeepusher (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
ps. you may want to read the last sentence of Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute which states "However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." I think this really summarizes this problem well. what do you think? Coffeepusher (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ashe, your input is appreciated but a bit unhelpful, and it's important to step back and think what really benefits an article rather than being fascistic with the rules (though no rules are being broken per se). It is absolutely beyond me how these criticisms could be construed as 'POV', except that social science and philosophy is always to some extent 'point of view'.
The arguments are quotations, the quotations are referenced, the references are from books, the books are by theorists, and those theorists are renowned enough to have their own pages with their own contributors.--86.150.226.166 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New criticism added recently stating "Another important criticism of Foucault has come from Jacques Derrida: in Writing and Difference, Derrida critiqued Foucault's Madness and Civilization. Foucault's reply has been reprinted in English as "My Body, This Paper, This Fire."" Okay, but WHAT is the criticism? Either requires further explanation or deletion I think. --Tomsega (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

it was a new editor who edits infrequently who added that. I asked them for some clarification on their talk page a few days ago when it was placed...but since they have a 2 day's on, 3 months off editing pattern I have a feeling they haven't seen it. I am going to remove it since without the specifics the fact that Derrida criticized another philosopher is a really redundant statement that can be applied to 2/3 of Europe and most of america.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Good job. I believe Derrida's major and famous criticism was that Foucault attempts to undermine the philosophy of Enlightenment whilst covertly relying on it. I have no reference to hand, but that's similar to Habermas' argument, and I think around a dozen big name theorists have made that accusation against Foucault as well. --Tomsega (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

labels

I may be wrong, but it seems to me unjust that the introduction is referring only to his denial of postmondernist and poststructuralist labels, since (as the article states further on) he rejected a whole lot other labels (including the "philopher") as well

It is important to note that he rejected these labels because, in the English-speaking world, they are often used pejoratively to refer to a particular sort of pretentious French philosophy. Searle once said, regarding Derrida, that Foucault was a "different calibre of thinker completely". --Tomsega (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

Foucault was an extremely prominent and still quite relevant thinker. His article needs an image of some sort, although I can't find one. Grunge6910 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA

In the first line of the article, there is no indication in the IPA spelling of the name to indicate which syllables are stressed, as opposed to unstressed. This needs to be rectified, as otherwise it does not serve as a pronunciation guide.AtomAnt (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

R.D. Laing & anti-psychiatry

I reverted this edit by User:Ryanhughes420 and removed the material they questioned as the point they make is borne out. Can someone supply a full reference for the material I removed here so it can be fact-checked please? Also please be careful not break WP:WEASEL when characterizing theoriist/commentators if someone says they are not an anti-psychiatrist (or another label) it is against policy to state that they are without qualifying the statement--Cailil talk 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Laing published the first English translations of Madness and Civilization in a series called Studies in Existentialism and Phenomenology. The controversy is documented in Sheridan's book, although I'm sure a more extensive discussion can be found.

Laing is important because of his part in introducing Foucault to the UK and with that the US. There should be something on him here, not least because there seems continued confusion about how much of a role Foucault had in anti-pysch during this period.

--Ragnor Ironpants (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

POV template?

ok, why? It was placed during the discussion on the criticism section, which has been resolved...at least a section that received over 10 posts in one day suddenly dropped to no responses in 4 days. no response shows that the issue has been resolved (we can not read minds and assume that "well so and so has not responded in a while, let me check my magic 8 ball and find out if they agree or disagree with the way this conversation is going?"). if you wish to continue the discussion then feel free, but if you are just pissed that the community did not agreeing with you and are trying to stick it to the page please go away.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For starters I've moved the template to the section in question, but please see my editsummary. If no further conversation about this issue is to be placed here soon it [the template] should go. Also critic sections are only discuraged but allowed; Maybe it's possible to merge it in existing sections? Just a thought.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the discussion on the criticism section drew to a close quickly because few people had any problem with it. Anybody with a level of expertise on the subject will know that the quotes on Sartre, Habermas and Rorty are renowned and sound ... the problem might be in conveying this to uninformed drive-by editors. We can't, however, have ONE referenced quote, then ANOTHER reference each time saying that the previous reference was good! the quote itself and the author ascribed to it should do the talking. One general rule of thumb might be to say at least if an academic is big enough to have their own full Wiki page, they're big enough to be cited.
I don't believe the criticisms may be incorporated into the previous sections because (a) they are too large and will look out of place, and (b) they refer to Foucault's general project and not a specific book or period in Foucault's life - and that's how the previous sections are categorised.--Tomsega (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology vs Genealogy

I think it is important for the sake of uniformity to mark the difference between these two loosely-separate projects in Foucault's enterprise. Foucault's 'archaeology' refers principally to the highly theoretical excavations of the human sciences (The Order of Things [1966], The Archaeology of Knowledge [1969]), whereas the word 'genealogy' refers to the more historical studies of social institutions (Madness and Civ, Discipline and Punish, etc).--Tomsega (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Influences

all his micropower idea is clearly influenced by gramsci's "hegemony". is there a particular reason why gramsci is not part of his "influences"?--camr nag 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why Gramsci shouldn't be in there, no, though a reference would be nice. In effect there's no reason why Marx, Engels, Lukacs, Gramsci, Adorno, and Althusser shouldn't all be in there (some are) - Foucault is supposedly post-Marxist but he owes everything to them really.
Regarding the opening section I think it's good that Kant and Nietzsche are the only influences mentioned as they are primary. For a long period Nietzsche wasn't mentioned which was bizarre... introducing Foucault without mentioning Nietzsche is a bit like introducing Marx without mentioning Hegel! --Tomsega (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
i added engels, marx and gramsci, the ones i'm sure about. althusser was already there.--camr nag 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

His notion of "micropower" is not rooted in any understanding of a form of "dominant power ideology" as User: Camr supposes. Such a link shows a flawed understanding of the anti-systemic nature of Foucault's theories. His notion is basically a three-part link between acts of discipline, acts of biopolitics, acts of governmentality (which embrace the two previous ones) and acts of resistance transversing between all three and outside of them. Hegemony is rooted in an analysis of base and superstructure regarding the dissemination of ideology, something not relevant at all to Foucault's ideas on power (which were not unified). Common terminology does not indicate common ideas. If you disagree and think you can show otherwise, please provide a source as to how any of this is connected to Gramsci's "Hegemony". Just because Marx was a overall condition of possibility for later thought does not mean he was a primary influence on them. He was an influence on their conditions, not the actual ideas. I'm sorry but the influences section doesn't hold. Afghan Historian (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has actually been heading in the wrong direction over the past few months, in terms of quality and coherency, due to the high number of edits (and indeed, edit wars) by those without any particular authority on the subject, or knowledge of how to produce a good wikipedia article. Foucault is a huge name in social science and philosophy. I therefore propose semi-protection so that only established editors may contribute. --Tomsega (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. User 115.130.30.165, 115.130.14.133, and 115.130.1.95 = sock puppeteer. --86.25.203.65 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I see any overall decline in the article's quality and content but the recent edit wars have been annoying and counterproductive, so I'd support that measure. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that's at least three of us that support the measure. If anyone with the authority to lock the article concurs, please do.--Tomsega (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I support this. Many months ago I stopped visiting Foucault's page because whenever I read the article, someone had included defamatory hearsay, and I got tired of having to revert. ExistentialBliss (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

template

Template does not show influences sections, im not sure for the reason, some month ago it was ok. --Aleksd (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did he destroy the manuscripts?

This is a good article. Well done to the people who worked on it. I like how it weaves in bibliographical details about the subject between talking about the works. I'm intrigued by these sentences: "Prior to his death, Foucault had destroyed most of his manuscripts, and in his will had prohibited the publication of what he might have overlooked." Would some explanation be in order as to why he did so? My curiosity is piqued.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of Foucault and sado-masochism

I added some information about Foucault's personal life from a review online, which was referred to from a book by James Miller. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. We've covered this ground before on talk -- Miller makes some sensationalistic claims in that book but they are not notable and many are not verifiable. We need to be particularly careful about avoiding turning an article about a philosopher into a forum for prurient attacks on someone because he was gay. csloat (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I can see where you are coming from. I'm not exactly clear on Wikipedia policy regarding this, but is it really an attack on Michel Foucault? His sexuality was something he was proud of, and presumably followers of his philosophy would not consider such information shameful. One question I have for now is how it can be verified that the things Miller writes in this regard were sensationalistic? Another question I have is whether such claims regarding Foucault's sexual life appear in other sources? At a blush, it seems that this information is notable, and that it's not a criticism of the subject. I may have to read more deeply into the policy regarding this though, because I do know that such information may be sensitive for some parties. Are you able to point me in the right direction? In the meanwhile, please also point out if there are some good sources indicating that Miller's views are sensational. I will see whether such claims about Foucault are repeated in other sources. I had thought this information was common knowledge, however. When I studied Foucault, it was. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No; it doesn't seem "at a blush" that this is notable at all. To the extent that Foucault's sex life is significant, it is certainly already addressed in the article. And, indeed, there are some sensationalistic biographies and articles by non-scholars that dwell on prurient detail, but that is not what Foucault is significant for. As far as whether Miller is sensational, all you have to do is read Miller yourself; but, yes, you can also read pretty much any Foucault expert (or serious scholar at all for that matter) who has bothered to address the issue. This isn't the place for "common knowledge"; it's the place for items of verified significance. Exaggerated passages from pseudo-scandalous biographies do not raise to the level of significance without substantive secondary sourcing. Again, this has all been addressed before; please read through the talk archives before trying to add such things to the article. Thanks, csloat (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation, I will certainly read the relevant parts of the talk archive. The issues I raise above may have been dealt with there (e.g., whether the argument that the Miller text is "sensationalistic" is something attested to by relevant authorities, and not just something a fellow Wikipedian thinks, and whether the information in question is actually "non-notable" as defined by Wikipedia). I don't fully grasp the ins and outs of this yet, but this may be a good experiment in following and seeing how the "dispute resolution" procedures work, too. Let me get back to you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a preliminary update. My finding is that the subject of Foucault's sado-masochism has not been mentioned in the talk page archives. Another finding is that the discussion did not seem to extend beyond the few people in a dispute on these discussion pages, and that the people who sought to add such material eventually gave up. I have read the policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources, and I do not understand a reason that this information should be excluded from the article based on those policies. Here are some links where books on Foucault have mentioned sado-masochism. In total there are 514 hits when searching ""sado-masochism" "foucault"" in Google books. In that sense, it seems a notable subject. Here are some links, I will add them as I find them. (This is separate from whether Foucault knowingly spread AIDS; Miller convincingly debunks that rumour. I would suggest that the rumour and its effective debunkment appear in the article, given its notability and importance of clearing the subject of such accusations, but that is for another discussion).
pp. 379-378: "By now, I took it for granted that Foucault's pre-occupation with sado-masochism was an important key for unlocking some of the most challenging but commonly neglected aspects of his work. I also assumed--correctly, as it turned out--that Americans were far more likely than the French to talk freely about this aspect of Foucault's life."
p. 378 [referring to a discussion with Foucault's longtime partner, Daniel Defert]: We talked for nearly three hours. My line of questionining seemed to strike some nerve. It was, I suppose, clear that I had immersed myself in Foucault's texts. It was clear as well that I had done my homework about Foucault's experiences in America's gay community. Defert of course knew about these experiences; and he clearly agreed that these experiences were important, indeed crucial, for a proper understanding of Foucault's work, and particularly his last books."
  • I also note that James Miller is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of Liberal Studies at the New School for Social Research, and that his text was published by Harvard University Press. In the document on reliable sources, I seem to recall it mentioning that books from university presses are among the most reliable sources. If there was any residual feeling that Miller was out to discredit Foucault, he says of him that: "By the summer of 1989, when this phase of my research drew to a close, I had come to regard Foucault with respect, even awe... I felt certain that he was one of the most original--and daring--thinkers of the century." Those does not appear to me the words of an individual who wishes to defame his subject.
"...what Foucault sees as being particularly 'promising' in gay culture is the growth of the practice of sado-masochism (S/M) as a 'creative enterprise' to achieve the 'desexualisation of pleasure'..."
  • Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: gender and the seductions of Islamism By Janet Afary, Kevin Anderson, Michel Foucault: "Indeed, many examples in Foucault's life pointed in this direction: his youthful attempts at suicide; his personal involvement with sado-masochism in California and elsewhere..."
  • Michel Foucault By David Macey: "In both California and New York, Foucault explored more of the gay scene, frequenting the area around Christopher Street in New York and the Castro district in San Francisco. An extraordinary number and variety of pleasures were now on offer in the backrooms of the clubs and bath-houses, which Foucault described as laboraties for sexual experimentation... [details about the sexual practices] ... Foucault was convinced that such encounters and especially sado-masochistic games were part of a 'whole new art of sexual practice'... Sado-masochism, for its part, was an eroticization of power, a strategic game in which the role of master and slave could be inverted, reversed, and then re-established. It extended pleasure far beyond the traditional pleasure of drinking, fucking, and eating, as Foucault put in an..."
p. 145: [initially referring to a character of fiction supposedly modelled on Foucault] "This is a man who discovered the delights of sado-masochism in California and who kept whips and chains in his apartment. The revelation of sado-masochistic Foucault is in fact less startling than many readers thoughts: Foucault hinted at his inclinations in some of the interviews given in the 1980s, although it is true that they were not all easy to locate at the time. The overall accuracy of the portrait is hard to dispute, though the details are no doubt exaggerated. Guibert spent a lot of time with Foucault in 1983-4 and passages in the novel are clearly based on entries in the journal he kept from 1976 to 1991, when he too died of AIDS."
I think the information above should show that this is not a trivial subject in Foucault's work. Indeed, his longterm partner attests that it is essential to understanding some of his books. If you still dispute that this should be covered in the article--and now I would suggest that it be covered not merely as an aspect of the subject's personal life, but given the abundance of information on it, how S/M and homosexuality is situated within Foucault's work as a whole--please explain the reasons as clearly as possible, preferably referring to a relevant policy item. I am new to Wikipedia, but the policies seem very clear about which information may be included and which should not be. The above seems to make it clear that this is a very notable part of Foucault's professional and private lives. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
you are right that Sado-masochism is a theme of Foucault's life, but in the sources you have provided there appears to be three running themes, with no connection. the first was of course was what got deleted which was his personal life, which we have mentioned is more voyeuristic than anything else and the sources you have provided have not established a solid connection between his personal life and philosophical views. the second was his view of sado masochism as liberation, the third was sado masochism as reaction to sexual oppression. I fail to see how the sources you have provided backs up the claim that his politics was Gay liberation, or give relevance to voyeuristic accounts of his personal behaviors.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Material that is purely prurient will be kept out of the article, period. Also, making Foucault into some kind of major S/M activist is a major distortion of reality. csloat (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems like there are a number of issues afoot. The comment that "Material that is purely prurient will be kept out of the article, period" seems a little absolute. Who defines what is "prurient"? And why does that matter, anyway? I'm not sure how that remark is related to the idea of building an encyclopedia based on relevant and notable material. Coffeepusher, your point is well noted. If different themes of Foucault's relation to sado-masochism are in the reliable sources available, then the article should treat them briefly. The quotes I found give relevance to his personal study of s/m--it's your opinion that they are "voyeuristic." Based on the research above, information about Foucault's personal and professional interest in sado-masochism appears of obvious relevance to this article. Therefore, I will restore the information that was previously removed, and summarise some more of the information above. If this is disputed, please explain. I have read the the neutral point of view policy again, and this part stands out: "Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"..." and "An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources..." The information I am seeking to add is in the spirit of those remarks. I do seek to understand if I have failed to grasp an important point in this discussion. Up to now, there is a lot of information on this issue, it's obviously important to Foucault's life and work, and none of it is in the article. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Based on my reading of that important policy document, my suggestion is to find some sources which articulate the views you have presented, for example, that "making Foucault into some kind of major S/M activist is a major distortion of reality" (which I do not believe I have intended to do, and which I also know is untrue), or other remarks which talk about how insignificant these ideas were to his thought. Don't just say it with your keyboard, say it with sources. That is my understanding of how this Wikipedia is supposed to work. Then, those views can also be written in and attributed as well. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
actually Wikipedia works off of consensus, rather than quoting rules at each other, we create a community centered around the pages where we collectively edit. The rules are guiding principles, but are open to interpretation by the community and each page is autonomous in all matters except those issues that impact the community at large. your original edit that got deleted did make "Foucault into some kind of major S/M activist" and was "voyeuristic" (while teaching he frequented bath houses and S/M clubs?). now if you take a look at those rule pages, you will find that the burden of proof rests upon the editor who is making the edits.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with coffeepusher. The problem is not just prurience, though that is a big one; it is also that Soundandfury's edits make totally unsubstantiated connections between philosophy and sexual activity. If we want to say Foucault was gay and involved in the S/M communities, this is fine insofar as it is both well substantiated by reliable sources and recognized as significant by such sources. That is not what we have here. Attempts to describe sexual activity in a lurid manner and raise philosophical and ethical questions about those activities (as Miller does in his trashy bio) are out of place here, even if you can find such quotes in a biography. We don't dwell on such things in encyclopedia entries the same reason we don't put in rumors of Nancy Reagan's sexual activity in Hollywood on her page, even though it is clearly referenced in biographies about her. Frankly, I think this is just an elaborate attempt to take homophobic potshots at the author, which has happened before with other editors, and they should be resisted in Wikipedia biographies. csloat (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw this and was going to wind it back myself. So Wikipedia is more complex than I considered. I apologise. I understood that consensus related to how the policies were to be applied, not whether they were to be applied at all. It's simply untrue that this is "an elaborate attempt to take homophobic potshots at the author"; I don't think that's a fair characterisation at all. Regarding the question of whether the information about Foucault's activities in this regard are substantiated by reliable sources and recognised as significant as such--isn't that what we have? The above quotes include notes like: "Foucault's pre-occupation with sado-masochism was an important key for unlocking some of the most challenging but commonly neglected aspects of his work" and "Foucault was convinced that such encounters and especially sado-masochistic games were part of a 'whole new art of sexual practice'" and the note from his longterm partner. These establish a direct link between these activities and Foucault's philosophy, while at the same time making clear the significance of them. The fact that such issues are mentioned by so many different authors on the subject itself shows some significance; they wouldn't all include it if it were not significant. Regarding Miller, I don't understand how a whole text can be dismissed as "trashy" on the whim of one editor, so any information from it about a certain topic can be excluded; is this sort of veto power usually allowed? Given that I have attempted to make some improvements to the article along these lines, and there are other ideas now, how about this: why don't one of you two come up with what you consider an acceptable text that explains Foucault's personal and professional engagement with sado-masochism and related issues, taking into consideration the abundance of information available on it, and on the significance of it for Foucault. I would look forward to seeing how to structure that appropriately based on the above sources; I thought I had done a good job, and I'm sorry if I did not. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

out dent the problem right now is that you have not considered what we said, just quoted rules to us, told us what was "opinion" and what was "fact" and reinserted exactly what was under discussion while stating on your talk page that if it got removed you would appeal that removal to a higher authority, and then stating that "I didn't realize that you could ignore rules" (WP:IAR BTW). These are not behaviors of an editor who is looking to respect the editors working on the page, rather someone who is trying to force their point of view. now I am willing to assume good faith and state that rather than this being an established editing style, you are figuring out how Wikipedia works and made some errors interacting with the community, errors that people routinely take offence to. so what are you trying to insert? your edit makes comment on his sexual practice, and then makes the statement that "this totally makes his works so much clearer"...and then author bombs us. ok, how? where is the direct correlation? He read DeSade et al. and gained inspiration for what work? are you making the claim that understanding his S/M enhances the understanding of the work itself, or do the different authors explain that this is where he became misguided? what works? can we show how Discipline and Punishment would not have come about without a deviation of sexual practices? what parts of "on the order of things" where directly related to his sadomasicistic tendencies? how exactly does this help for the greater understanding of Foucault, or is it simply factual trivia.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ps. your own citation by Jeremy Carrette provides an great critique for why you should not use Miller.

in reviewing a criticism regarding millers work which stated that you should check millers quotations Carrette states that the criticism of Miller using "extraordinary critical acrobatics" and "frenetic orgy of citations" "becomes more accurate in relation to Millers account of Sado-masochism and the way he links this to mystical and ecstatic experience...to suggest that Foucault understood his own experience theologically is seriously to misread his work on religion. The question remains as to how Miller formulates such a mis constructed argument"...now your summery of this is "says Miller's linking of S/M with mystical and ecstatic experiences in interpreting Foucault is problematic, but does not seem to suggest the remarks about Foucault's practice of S/M are untrue or falsified"... problematic is one way of saying it...I would say that Carrette is one step away from accusing Miller of either academic misconduct and creative editing, which he glosses over by stating that Miller misread Foucault Coffeepusher (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, SoundandFury, do your research. If you want to read a biography of Foucault, read Didier Eribon's, from which Miller shamelessly pilfers most of the biographical stories of Foucault's life to begin with. Miller himself admits that his tale begins with a rumor that he believes to be false -- that doesn't stop him from perpetuating the rumor (in fact, his book remains the main source of the rumor!), and it doesn't stop him from dwelling on further rumors. One gets the sense that Miller is obsessively titillated by the hint of sexual perversity. Diane Rubenstein's review in Modern Fiction Studies states what appears to be the consensus among Foucault experts about this book: it is a "a sordid, distorted, and sensationalist reading" of Foucault. (Modern Fiction Studies 41.3-4 (1995) 681-698.) Ruth Ohayon castigates Miller's "salacious approach" in The French Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Mar., 1997), pp. 605-606. Miller's book gets attention, for sure, and it is ok to mention that in this context, but not to dwell on every salacious detail he cites as unquestioned fact (and particularly not to dwell on those details he admits are falsities, as Soundandfury suggests we do!!) Perhaps the Wikipedia page for Miller can include some of this nonsense, but it's just not a significant part of Foucault's biography. Soundandfury, if you don't want us to think you are trying to dwell on homophobic scandal, then perhaps you should turn your attention to more fruitful pursuits, like actually discussing Foucault's impact on philosophy. But that would, of course, require you to try to understand what serious scholars have written about Foucault (and hopefully to understand what Foucault himself has written) rather than making a big stink about stories that appear in a tabloid-style biography. csloat (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I was away for several days. Thank you for your remarks, I appreciate them. Coffeepusher, you are correct that I am playing around and seeing how Wikipedia works. You may have misunderstood my reference to the policies; rather than trying to be officious, I was trying to ground my argument in something substantial as best I knew how. A key dispute that you have both raised seems to be that the information about Foucault's interest in sado-masochism is irrelevant. However, the notes above from reliable sources indicate the opposite to that. I understand that Miller's biography was criticised, and appreciate how csloat showed that clearly. In that case, why cannot something be apposed like, "In Miller's biography, which was criticised as sordid by Source...."; the reader will get an idea that not everyone agrees with Miller's reading. But should it be excluded entirely because there are opinions that it is that way? There are also positive reviews of it. I won't copy/paste the quotes I already gathered above to reiterate my point, but the final thing I suggested was that you (plural) please construct what you think is an acceptable and appropriate depiction of the role of sado-masochism and gay liberation in Foucault's professional and private lives. I accept that my attempt may not have hit the mark, so please include in the article what you believe is an appropriate appraisal. On standby... --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that Commodore Sloath summarized accurately why Millers representation of Foucault's sexual practice should not be used in this article, another one of your citations mentioned that a Miller paraphrase caused him to misrepresent Foucault and that error forced him to redo a work. I personally don't think that S/M belongs in this article, because the citations above show 1. that Foucault did engage in S/M which is not under dispute, 2. That when discussing sexual deviations Foucault felt that they demonstrated some form of liberation, which is again a point that anyone who has read "History of Sexuality Volume 1" already understands...and a minor point of his philosophy at that; however the citations above fail to connect Foucault's personal sexual preference to his literature, and Miller is the only one who attempts to make that connection (an false connection according to the above sources which we have already mentioned). By my read, Miller is a minority of One. The sources you have provided don't even have chapters or sections on S/M, rather only mention it in passing 3 or 4 times in the entire book which would provide undue weight for the topic to have it included.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Coffeepusher; this is definitely an undue weight issue. The problem is that the alleged connection between Foucault's sexual practices and philosophy is only brought up by people who completely misunderstand his philosophy (or who haven't bothered to read it at all). For foucault, alleged sexual deviations are actually produced by the administrative society -- I suggest thesoundandthefury re-read the History of Sexuality volume 1 (or read it for the first time if that is the case) and try to discuss the ideas there rather than trying to filter everything through an implicit moralism concerning Foucault's actual sexual practices. We don't dwell in the essay on Hemingway or Hegel, for example, on whether their well-known heterosexual proclivities influenced their writing in significant ways, even though there are reliable sources who have made such suggestions. The only reason we are dwelling on Foucault's seems to be an implicit moral condemnation of sexual practice; such moralism has no place in an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not attempting to moralise, I hope I did not give that impression. The note from Miller's text making an explicit connection between S/M and Foucault's philosophy is not from Miller's mouth, it's from Foucault's long term partner's: "Defert of course knew about these experiences; and he clearly agreed that these experiences were important, indeed crucial, for a proper understanding of Foucault's work, and particularly his last books." I don't see how that opinion can be attributed to Miller. The Ramazanoğlu source says: "With the exception of homosexuality and sado-masochism, Foucault chose not to provide a glimpse of concrete furture liberations from subjectivity and sexuality." Implicit there is that in Foucault's thought "homosexuality and sado-masochism provide a glimpse of concrete furture liberations from subjectivity and sexuality." A few of the others, and in Coffepusher's own admission, indicate that S/M and gay liberation is a significant--and I don't mean prime--part of Foucault's thought. I disagree that it should be excluded from the article based on an argument against Miller; I don't see the consistency or logic behind that, as though a reliable source can be dismissed on a certain topic (in this case, the views expressed are not even those of Miller) because it doesn't fit the schema. That seems to open the door for any kind of selective argumentation. Indeed, if top-rank literary critics analysed the importance of heterosexuality in Hemingway or Hegel's work, it should also be considered for inclusion in those articles. If a long term partner mentioned that about one of them, I would suggest it warrant a mention. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reading through the dispute resolution policies and notes. I intend to raise a query with regard to Miller on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. A main reason for rejecting the information appears to be a claim that Miller is not reliable on this topic, so I would like to take that to an uninvolved audience for outside assessment. One other thing that would be worth noting are these words from the tutorial on NPOV, under the "Information suppression" section:
  • Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
    • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
    • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
I would say that the views presented above on this subject are "significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms," or at the very outside "significant citable information in support of a minority view." So I am appealing to an outside audience with regard to the Miller source. If this information really is supposed to be excluded, then I will not resist. If, however, it is supposed to be in the article, then I think it should not be removed. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the notice regarding this issue. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] I noted the responses to the noticeboard indicated that Miller just scraped through as a reliable source here. I will include some of the language I included earlier. The other issue is that perhaps Miller is not to be used at all here. Is that the case? I haven't seen the extent of references to him, but what is the usual situation once a source has been "marked," so to speak? Should it be purged from the article? Standing by. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I added in some text, please advise if it is agreeable. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Also, Miller is quoted again as “Prior to his death, Foucault had destroyed most of his manuscripts, and in his will had prohibited the publication of what he might have overlooked.”; is this controversial and needs to be purged? I don't think so personally, but I'm not sure how strictly the advice from the Reliable Source Noticeboard should be adhered to. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the text per WP:UNDUE and noted this on the RSN board. Let's stop this nonsense please; if you want to include a footnote mentioning that Miller wrote a bio about Foucault that was roundly dismissed by actual Foucault scholars, that's fine with me, but details about various claims made in that book should be on the page for Miller, not on this page. csloat (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Also, if you're going to try to restore it, please do not call Miller's biography a "study." csloat (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I find that a bit unusual. I will ask for comment from the users who responded to the Reliable Source Noticeboard call. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Responded there. I think we should probably move the discussion back here though since it was moved there for no real reason. It's never been an issue of reliable sourcing and I fear that you've inadvertently confused the issue by moving it over there. Hopefully my post there clears up the issue. csloat (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
as I said on the previous page, Millers biographical study has made an impact upon people's perspective of how his life does relate to his philosophy. at 477 citations I think that a three sentence mention of both the book and the controversy gives it due weight (especially considering that everyone on this page was previously aware of millers criticism). I think that my edition of the controversy remains factual, and gives it the weight it deserves (most of the text placed were citations).Coffeepusher (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"477 citations" refers to what? The number is meaningless unless you actually are looking at what they say. The controversy raised by the book can be mentioned here, but I do not see how there is any evidence that the controversy centers on the illogical (and counter-chronological) argument that Foucault's philosophy was based on his attendance at S/M clubs. Miller was also criticized for starting the rumor that Foucault was a murderer and that Foucault's entire philosophy changed based on a hit of acid. There were several other points of controversy as well. I am fine with saying that Miller published a sensationalist biography that stirred up some controversy and was roundly criticized by Foucault scholars, but to make this S/M thing the center of the controversy is extreme and definitely violates undue weight. csloat (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the note I wrote there. The issue is that this is not just something cited in Miller. I have cited a number of sources which show how S/M was part, and perhaps an important part, of Foucault's latter life—at least while he was in the U.S. That's broadly what the reliable sources I pasted onto the discussion page here said. Since three editors have now expressed that this is legitimate material to add to the article, I am going to restore it again. Csloat, I brought the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because you said Miller was not reliable. We have found that he is reliable, with qualification. Yet the addition is still being resisted, and the reasons remain unclear. The information is obviously pertinent. As I say, I will restore it, and we may find a different avenue of dispute resolution if it is removed again (against what I might boldly venture appears to be a kind of "consensus"). --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I combined elements of both mine and Coffeepusher's inclusion. Again, if this is jumping the gun, please inform. A contributor responding to a query I made about this told me that a "Request for Comment" may be another way of getting wider input. If the current inclusion is still less than satisfactory, I could begin one of those. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said reliability was the issue; please don't distort what I said; thanks. We now have more information about Miller's obviously bogus S/M claim in the article than we do about The Birth of the Clinic. This is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE; I don't know how much more clear it can get. If you want to restore the material you're going to need to respond to the actual arguments I made above. If you have other sources for this claim besides Miller, why are you insisting on focusing on Miller? Again, this isn't even the only controversial claim of Miller, so why are we focused on this? I can't see how this serves any other purpose than salacious prurience. And again, I am ok with a well-written mention of this issue that is well sourced and doesn't violate undue weight, but what you have offered is the exact opposite of that in every regard. csloat (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Then please write it yourself and put it in. I have done my best to represent the matter with due weight. You focused on Miller earlier, so I took it to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. It's obviously much more than Miller though. You are invited to produce your own piece of writing which demonstrates the importance of S/M in Foucault's life and work. I don't know how you could get much simpler than my recent inclusion though. Look forward to seeing it! --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No thanks - you're the one who wants this in; you're the one who should be responsible for crafting it in line with Wikipedia policies. It's a strange thing for you to have such single-minded focus on, I think -- why not spend some time to become familiar with what Foucault is actually known for and see if you can contribute in a way that doesn't dwell on the salacious? But if you must ruminate on prurient detail, please do so in a manner that is consistent with our policies. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. csloat (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well CSloat we are in disagreement regarding the weight issue. one thing that this conversation has taught me is that high powered scholars have spent time addressing this controversy, not because it is a fringe argument but because it has currency within the scholarly field. the book itself is reference multiple times in the Cambridge companion of Foucault, and several essays within that text tackle Millers controversial claims head on. Our own citations used as arguments against the validity of this argument is more than enough to prove that this is not a minor controversy but a discussion that, while there is an orthodox view of Millers argument (and mentioning it with any reference to it as fact is stamped down quickly), there must be a counterargument existing within the discourse. Millers biorgraphy is one of the top 3 biographies on Foucault, cited 480 times (by google scholar) as opposed to Diubier Eribon’s biography which tops out at 66 citations, or Macy’s biorgraphy which has a whopping 251. Even Halperin (528citations) states that Miller’s biography is well researched, and that Miller himself understands Foucaults more complicated works on par with any scholar. After this evidence I am personally not comfortable with making the Foucault s/m-philosophy connection a silenced controversy/heresy , especially on a page that will be read by scholars interested in Foucault. It is obvious that powerful scholars chose to tackle Millers connection head on, because they knew that Foucault scholars when presented with the connection would react in a very predictable way if they felt like the controversy was being treated as heresy rather than addressed directly. This is why I feel we should insert the three sentence explanation which offers the claim, how the claim is supported, and the reaction to that claim backed up by recognized experts in the field.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's clear that the issue has been taken up by the relevant scholars, and there are a variety of opinions on it; it doesn't seem there is a very clear reason it should be neglected. The differing views can be presented. I will again reinsert the formulation I came up with. If you think it can be improved, please modify it, csloat. I do not mean to be disruptive or give you a headache, but you have created an inadvertent Catch-22, by telling me that I have to make it conform to certain guidelines, without giving me an example of what they are. Then I asked you to do it, but you said that was my responsibility. Whatever the case, I will put the last text back in. If it can be improved, please improve it! When I checked in at the Editors Assistance Noticeboard enquiring about which venues I should check, the respondent first recommended the NPOV noticeboard (as I recall), and then if things still aren't worked out, to start a Request for Comment. So I am re-adding the text, and you are welcome to make it conform to what you regard an appropriate formulation. The next step in the dispute resolution process will then be an RfC. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Coffeepusher, this is the first I've seen this evidence advanced; thank you for providing it. Can you please explain to me why this particular claim (not the Miller biography generally, but the specific and chronologically impossible claim that Foucault's experience in California SM clubs re-shaped his philosophy in demonstrable ways) is worth more attention and carries more weight than the Birth of the Clinic or The Order of Things?
SoundandFury, it is hard for me to believe that you don't understand why this material is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines -- I have been extremely clear about the matter. You can disagree, but to say that you are powerless to do anything except regurgitate the same paragraphs that failed to meet these guidelines is feeble. But I'll do my best to do this for you in good faith if it will settle this dispute. csloat (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I've edited based on Coffeepusher's version; if you want to add the following to the article I will back off:

In 1992 James Miller published a biography of Foucault that was greeted with controversy in part due to his claim that Foucault's experiences in the gay sadomasochism community during the time he taught at Berkely directly influenced his political and philosophical works [1]. Miller's book has largely been rebuked by Foucault scholars as being either simply misdirected,[2] a sordid reading of his life and works,[3] [4] or as a politically driven intentional misreading of Foucault's life and works.[5] [6]

-csloat (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you, if Sound and Fury feels this is a good addition I am ok with this version. to answer your question I think the controversy deserves a mention and source because the Miller claim has generated a lot of speculation outside of Foucaultian (I think that is how you spell it) scholars, and a lot of controversy within the study. therefore a quick mention along with citations of criticisms will help inform people who would otherwise think it was being left out intentionally.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that this is not more important than The Order of Things or other of Foucault's books? I have never disagreed that a short mention could be appropriate, but the question of undue weight involves a comparative measure of some sort; my point all along is that this is comparatively less important than many other things. Anyway I'm glad we have reached a compromise here. csloat (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this is an acceptable compromise, and I won't push the issue further. I will state, however, that the current formulation neglects much of the information above that makes it clear that Foucault's experiences with the gay community in the U.S., and sadomasochism "were important, indeed crucial, for a proper understanding of Foucault's work, and particularly his last books." There's not only one comment which makes a like assertion, but a number. The current formulation seems to mostly divert attention from the importance of these experiences, only noting that one scholar who has mentioned them has been criticised, without engaging with the numerous scholars who have attested to how these experiences are important for understanding Foucault and his work. I will leave it here, however, finishing with on the note that I appreciate clsoat's compromise and hope to work together in future. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My only other observation is that it is likely this material would be relevant in an article focusing more narrowly on Foucault's study of sexuality--but of that I am not sure. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there such an article? There's an article on History of Sexuality but I don't see how we can directly connect the claim to a specific book, unless the sources say that somewhere? csloat (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have another question. Do you see in my paragraph above, and in several other places, how I have provided a quote from Miller's text about how Foucault's long time partner attested to the importance of S/M for Foucault? And the other instances (up, way above) where S/M is mentioned as something significant. My question is why we cannot state, in the article, that S/M was significant for Foucault, according to these sources. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Because while S/M is significant FOR Foucault, Miller is the only one who tried to draw the connection that Foucault's S/M experience was important to understanding Foucault. What we all agreed upon in the discussion above is that this statement is only significant to the community of scholars in the context of the controversy it generated, otherwise it is the view of a significant minority that doesn't merit inclusion.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Presumably every philosopher's sexuality is important to them; the only reason it is worth comment here is because a biographer tried to make a scandal out of it and that caused some controversy that has made its way into reliable sources. In a homophobic culture it's pretty easy to make hay out of someone's sexual practices in a moralistic way. Yet why don't we have people on the Hegel page insisting that we include a paragraph on his sexual liaisons and how they might have influenced his theories of lordship and bondage, even though this possible connection has been mentioned by scholars before. Or perhaps the Thorstein Veblen page should include speculation as to how Veblen's affairs with his students affected his theory of conspicuous consumption. These things are well documented, and have been brought up in reliable sources, but because they aren't seen as significantly "deviant" we don't dwell on them, while we ooh and aah at the fantasy of Foucault in leather chaps. csloat (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Paul Veyne, good friend of Paul Michel Foucault, has written a book about him in 2008 (original "sa pensee, sa vie" or like this). This very Paul Veyne is writting-saying some things about P.M. Foucaults sexuality-concernig-stuff. And when a good friend is willing to make PM's sexuality becoming discurse, why would wikipedia not want it or presume itself to decide when it is willing? what conditions for the truth...?

Btw, Masochism is not just a contradiction to Sadism, as well as the second isnt contradictive to the first (read Deleuze' study about Sacher-Masoch!). So if you want to talk about sexuality, you should make clear about what subjects of which sexuality you want to refer here. Otherwise the context will make it become redicoulus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.65.168 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While I do understand this conversation is long...you will realize that we are not contesting any of the claims to S/M and Foucault, just stating that the argument that an understanding of his personal sexual preference does not contribute to a greater understanding of his works, which was the argument as it was presented. so we are not arguing against truth and untruth in the actions, only in the implications that Miller raised. I understand you are raising a very Foucaultian question with the "gatekeepers of wikipedia and their stranglehold on truth"...but you may want to read the argument a little closer. and to answer your question, the reason we don't want to address that within the article is because it comes from a source and has been traditionally used to discredit the scholar rather than give a greater understanding of him. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't exactly the whole issue, but it was one of the issues. The article does not actually state that Foucault was deeply engaged in the homosexual and s/m communities of San Francisco, and that his experiences there were important to his life and work. The reason that is not stated is because Csloat thinks it's not PC. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
not that its not PC, but because that conversation has been taken out of context and used to discredit Foucault using homophobic rhetoric, and that the information on his sexual preferences is more tabloid than encyclopedic. The only one who thought it was important to his work was Miller, and "Foucault's long time lover" under the direction of Millers interview, and Miller had to drastically reinterpret both Foucault and Nietzsche to justify that conclusion (paraphrasing to the point that the referenced sections are unrecognizable and one scholar had to completely redo a work because he relied upon that paraphrasing).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not one conversation. The main argument is that the information about Foucault's sexual behaviour is "more tabloid than encyclopedic." That is a personal judgement, not the judgement of the reliable sources I quoted above (and there are many more). Presumably you would say that all those sources quoted above are tabloid, simply because they mention this? The point is not to emphasise it overly much, but to see that Foucault's sexual behaviour is noted in the article. That S/M was an important part of Foucault's later life is an important piece of information, would take no more than, say, 20 words, and would help readers new to the subject to understand the issues. It seems to me that there's no other reason for excluding it except for a judgement that we must shield the reader from such news. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
you did mention those sources, but your argument was that it was important because according to Miller it helped you understand his work better. That opinion has been discredited by many people who understand Foucault better than you or I. you did mention may sources that briefly mention Foucault and S/M, but some of those were 200+ page biographies which dedicated a paragraph or so on the topic...so I don't think they thought it was really important either, they mentioned it because it was part of his life and they had the space to mention it. others you brought up in the context of the Miller article, but several of those sources while they mention S/M they either refute Millers arguments, or just mentioned S/M in order to refute Millers argument. So for the sake of argument why is it "an important piece of information"? outside the Miller argument you didn't establish this, and what are "the issues" that it would help the reader understand, I am not sure if you went over the issues you are mentioning. if a large biography only dedicates less than 0.3% of its text on the topic how will a mention of S/M on a 3 page article inform the reader about Foucault. so please complete the enthymeme for us, why is it important and what issues are we failing to raise.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Coffeepusher, I must say that I had a kind of 'eureka' moment when reading your note. I can see the logic. Yes, the other sources mention it but they do not assert its centrality or importance to Foucault's work. This is logical. And the only writer who can be said to state clearly that S/M was deeply important to Foucault is Miller - whose interpretation has apparently been disavowed by his peers. To "complete the enthymeme," I could only backtrack and state that I think it is important, but the reliable sources available do not. It is case closed on this.

I had felt until now a begrudging acceptance of the consensus, and thought it was a PC crusade to sanitise the article of these facts about Foucault's life. Whether that is in fact the case or not does not matter, because it is clear that the opinion that this is a major consideration for scholars is not a majority one, but a tiny minority one. Thank you for your clear explanation. I am satisfied with the process of the discussion, whatever I may think of its outcome. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The notion that this ever had anything whatsoever to do with "PC" is both insulting and idiotic. csloat (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The initial reason given to me why there should be no mention of Foucault's sexual appetite was because that information was deemed "prurient." In my view that is just political correctness dressed up. And an ironic form of political correctness, too, given the context. The discussion then moved on to the more central issues of sourcing, and what importance these ideas are granted in the sources. That's what we discussed afterwards, and I was satisfied with the process of that discussion, as I mention.

But I still think that Foucault's admirers hold contradictory points of view in at once embracing a philosophy that would render such sexual activity as wholly OK, and at the same time being rather coy about having the information included in a transparent and upfront way. Such is life. The technical explanation is sufficient for me, whatever else is going on. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please show me a definition of "prurient" that equates it with "political correctness"? Can you show where I have been "coy" about Foucault's sexual activity? My question is why are you so obsessed with this particular detail rather than anything substantive in Foucault's work? Or, if your obsession is sexuality, why are you not similarly obsessed with the sexuality of heterosexual philosophers? I have never suggested that Foucault wasn't gay, or that he wasn't involved in S/M subcultures. What I have suggested is that detailed belaboring of these sexual practices is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. The problem is not one of "PC"; it is rather that this is an encyclopedia. Nobody has suggested his sexuality should be covered up; only that it shouldn't take up more space than, say, the impact of The Birth of the Clinic. In any case, as long as you have come to your senses on this issue there is no point in arguing back and forth about it anymore -- suffice to say that you have simply misunderstood my position from the beginning on this. csloat (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to continue making this long discussion even longer, but I do feel the need to reply further to your misguided comment that there is something "contradictory" about my position on this issue. It appears to me that your familiarity with Foucault's actual theories stops at Miller's biography. If you truly have an interest in this material, and not just the alleged "scandal" of Foucault's sexual practices, you really ought to read at the very least volume one of History of Sexuality. It seems to me your understanding of Foucault's ideas about the history of sexuality are 100% backwards. The notion in particular that we can uncover the "truth" of Foucault if we talk more about his actual sexual practices sounds suspiciously like the very Reichian/Marcusian ideas about sexuality in the Victorian era that Foucault explicitly and repeatedly refutes in that volume. The notion that a proliferation of discourses about sexual practice will lead to truth and even a kind of liberation is precisely the notion Foucault rejects. I think the reason I've been so exercised about this issue to the point you perceive it as some kind of prudish PC is that you seem to want to reenact the very structure of the confessional that Foucault explains as a rearticulation of the discourse of power through sexuality: put Foucault through the Inquisition; make him confess his actual sexual practices, who he's fucked and how, who he's spanked (or who has spanked him) and when, and then we will finally know the "truth" of Foucault! How is this substantively different from the will to truth that Foucault unpacks in History of Sexuality? csloat (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean my remarks to inspire anger. I wanted to report my understanding and reflections on the exchange. I do not wish to reenact any structure of the confessional. We obviously have quite different views on Foucault, that is all. I won't be bringing this subject up again. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not angry. But it's not "different views of Foucault" per se; it's about not having bothered to actually read him at all. csloat (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Ok, now we are taking intellectual potshots at editors. the discussion concerning the mainspace was over a couple of weeks ago, and if you two need to sort something out can we do that on your user pages.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference JMiller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Scialabba, George. Review: "The Passion of Michel Foucault by James Miller." Boston Globe, 30 January, 1993.
  3. ^ Rubenstein,Diane 1995 Modern Fiction Studies 41.3-4 681-698
  4. ^ Ohayon, Ruth The French Review March 1997, Vol. 70, No. 4 pp. 605-606
  5. ^ Carrette, Jeremy R. Religion and culture By Michel Foucault [1]
  6. ^ Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: towards a gay hagiography [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michel_Foucault/Archive_5&oldid=1142554258"