DawgNotes

Thanks! That's freakin' hysterical, particularly since at his death (1984) he was plotting to have a series of three debates in the U.S. with Habermas.

BTW, I'm winning :o)

Oh, and I'm having some reservations about White's interpretation of Foucault. In week 2 I told Collin my suspicions of White working from Foucualt's notion of discourse, but there is one notable change: White assigns a great deal of subjectivity to the discourse (e.g. "We use the dicourse"). Foucualt is very clear that the discourse uses us, which causes problems for that type of subjectivism. As we get to chapter 11 (and I may be able to come next week with some insight on White's use of Foucault from KRP) we might have to have a discussion about how White is reading Foucault, which may not be the most accurate way.

Might be right, fwiw, if White's referring only to _Le Mots_ (which came out in '66 and was making in translation sometime after that, probably around '72). Did F. have much else circulating other than _Le Mots_ and _Madness and Civilization_? I guess the question I'd raise is that if we judge by _The Order of Words and Things_, Foucault wasn't widely taken up, was he? He was visiting Attica prison in '72 and only came out with _Archaeology of Knowledge_, _Prison_, _Sexuality_ and even _Pierre Revierre_ later on--after the faulty prediction by White.

Historians should never predict the future! White himself surely says so, somewhere early in the book. But poor soul just couldn't help himself, could he? It's kind of like my father telling me that in five years everybody will have forgotten the Beatles, and that I was just wasting my time and money with meaningless music. Future-prognostication: slippery footing, that.