From: Ferda Keskin <keskinf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 02:47:50 +0400 (MEDT)
Thanks for the neat sunmmary of Althusser's
interpretation of Marx and the other textual
information. My question, however, was not
"what is the early/late Marx debate?" or "who,
including Althuser, said what about the issue?"
Assuming that we all are familiar with these
names and their contributions to the debate, I was
hoping to hear how you make the distinction
between the 'humanist' and the 'scientist' Marx/ism
in the light of Marx's own work. I think, apart
>from his brilliant interpretation of Marx's work,
a major contribution Althusser makes is to be found
in the very first page of "Reading Capital" where he says
"Since we came into the world, we have read Capital
constantly in the writings and speeches of those who have read it for us,
well or ill, both the dead and the living...: philosophers,
economists, politicians. We have read bits of it, the
'fragments' which the conjuncture had 'selected' for us. We have
even all, more or less, read Volume One... But some day it is
essential to read Capital to the letter. To read the text itself
complete, all four volumes, line by line..."
So that was my starting point in raising the question.
I agree that there is some influence of Althusser on Foucault,
which is probably natural, because Foucault was a student of
Althusser's in the Ecole Normale. But by the same token,
thereis an influence of even Hyppolite on Foucault.
As for your remarks on the periodization of Foucault's work,
I am not sure if understand you correctly. Do you agree
or disagree with Dreyfus & Rabinow's periodization?
Also what exactly do you mean by Foucault's "totalizing"
account of his work? Is it the work that, according to Foucault,
totalizes or is it that Foucault totalizes his own work?
Or is there no difference between the two?