Hi Ali,
Have you found the transcript of the Zizek talk where he reads and critiques
Foucault's work on Iranian revolution as an inversion of the Kantian concept
of 'enthusiasm'? I don't know if it has been published elsewhere as finished
work yet?
http://www.cinestatic.com/different_maps/2006_06_01_different_maps.asp
"In his Iran writings, key Foucauldian term is enthusiasm, which he takes
from Kant writings on French Revolution, but turns around - original Kant
idea was that political enthusiasm is property not of empirical event
itself, but rather of sublme image of event - so that true French Revolution
meant for him hopes aroused by French Revolution in gaze of observers."
"In any case, though - in his Iranian revolution writings, Foucault inverts
Kant, he says that enthusiasm is totally contained within empirical
situation, it has nothing to do with sublime image, is even opposed to this,
to cold gaze of observers who Foucault claims cannot understand it at all,
he says, "the man in revolt is ultimately inexplicable.""
"But this is not all - Foucault then goes to third position, where he
withdraws even further. Now he claims that the enthusiasm driving the pure
event in the first place was driven by reactionary factor - anti-feminism,
chauvinism, xenophobic nationalism, anti-semitism, and so on - with his
conclusion here basically that you need all of this historical shit in order
to sustain enthusiasm, it is ultimately necessary."
"So you the see the logic here - three withdrawals. First, Foucault claims
is event is absolutely new, and that whatever reactionary aspect it might
seem to have belongs entirely to outside subjective perceptions. Then he
says, in fact, split between new aspect and reactionary aspect inherent in
event itself, but that the pure event comes first. Then, he withdraws even
further, and says that actually it was reactionary aspect that came first,
which generated event in the first place."
I found this useful for some initial thinking for my dissertation that
develops a post-Kantian conception of enthusiasm in subcultural scenes (more
in terms of affect, etc. and not in terms of spirituality at all) and its
commodification/capture by the cultural industries that service scenes.
(Zizek's critique suffers from an inability to grasp the actual or virtual
multiplicity of events, but that is another issue...)
Ciao,
Glen.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:29 PM
Subject: [Foucault-L] Foucault, spirituality and Revolution
Dear Listers,
I am currently studying the relation between the notions of
"spirituality" and "revolution" in Foucault. In this
context I would be grateful if someone on the list could refer to good
secondary material on the topic. I assume that primary resources on the
subject
are well known.
Ali
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list