Genealogy, Critical Theory, History

IF 0.4 Q1 HISTORY
A. Sartori
{"title":"Genealogy, Critical Theory, History","authors":"A. Sartori","doi":"10.1086/707986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"arx was most likely far from the forefront of Michel Foucault’s mind when he wrote “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” in 1971. Nonetheless, there is little reason to doubt that Foucault considered it as effective a critique ofMarx as of any other nineteenth-century historicist. Already in The Order of Things of 1966, Foucault had consigned Marx to a nineteenth-century epistemic order that he characterized in terms of the ultimate convergence of “historicity” with “the human essence.” It was in this context that he had made his famous remark that Marxism’s debates with bourgeois economics amounted to “no more than storms in a children’s paddling pool,” insofar as Marx’s thought “exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else.” Given that Foucault would only grow more virulent in his antiMarxism as the years passed, there can be little doubt that his later genealogical critique was also presumed to encompass Marx in its embrace. This short article represents, as much as anything, the distillate of my experience as someone who came of age at the apex of Foucault’s anglophone influence in the late 1980s and 1990s, who taught works by both Foucault and Marx in the Social Sciences Core at theUniversity of Chicago, andwho thus had the opportunity to discuss themextensively inweekly instructormeetings under the leadership ofMoishe Postone, from 1998 to 2007. What, it asks, does Postone’s postfoundationalist and posthistoricist reading ofMarx look like when examined through the lens of Foucault’s case for Nietzschean genealogy? Foucault’s acute critique of historicism makes it possible to readMarx’s writings with a sharper eye to their conceptual distance from the variety of nineteenth-century historicism to which Foucault himself consigned them. Insofar as genealogy proves to have no critical purchase onMarx’s theoretical approach, however, Marx’s analysis of social form remains available to postfoundationalism as a framework that embraces categorial reflexivity as the basis for a radical critique of social domination from a standpoint immanent to social form.","PeriodicalId":43410,"journal":{"name":"Critical Historical Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":"63 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/707986","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Historical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/707986","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

arx was most likely far from the forefront of Michel Foucault’s mind when he wrote “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” in 1971. Nonetheless, there is little reason to doubt that Foucault considered it as effective a critique ofMarx as of any other nineteenth-century historicist. Already in The Order of Things of 1966, Foucault had consigned Marx to a nineteenth-century epistemic order that he characterized in terms of the ultimate convergence of “historicity” with “the human essence.” It was in this context that he had made his famous remark that Marxism’s debates with bourgeois economics amounted to “no more than storms in a children’s paddling pool,” insofar as Marx’s thought “exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else.” Given that Foucault would only grow more virulent in his antiMarxism as the years passed, there can be little doubt that his later genealogical critique was also presumed to encompass Marx in its embrace. This short article represents, as much as anything, the distillate of my experience as someone who came of age at the apex of Foucault’s anglophone influence in the late 1980s and 1990s, who taught works by both Foucault and Marx in the Social Sciences Core at theUniversity of Chicago, andwho thus had the opportunity to discuss themextensively inweekly instructormeetings under the leadership ofMoishe Postone, from 1998 to 2007. What, it asks, does Postone’s postfoundationalist and posthistoricist reading ofMarx look like when examined through the lens of Foucault’s case for Nietzschean genealogy? Foucault’s acute critique of historicism makes it possible to readMarx’s writings with a sharper eye to their conceptual distance from the variety of nineteenth-century historicism to which Foucault himself consigned them. Insofar as genealogy proves to have no critical purchase onMarx’s theoretical approach, however, Marx’s analysis of social form remains available to postfoundationalism as a framework that embraces categorial reflexivity as the basis for a radical critique of social domination from a standpoint immanent to social form.
家谱、批判理论、历史
当米歇尔·福柯在1971年写下《尼采,系谱,历史》时,arx很可能远离了他的思想前沿。尽管如此,并没有什么理由怀疑福柯认为这是对马克思主义的有效批判,就像对其他19世纪历史主义者的批判一样。早在1966年的《事物的秩序》中,福柯就将马克思置于19世纪的认识秩序中,他将其描述为“历史性”与“人类本质”的最终融合。正是在这种背景下,他发表了著名的言论,即马克思主义与资产阶级经济学的辩论“只不过是儿童戏水池里的风暴”,因为马克思的思想“像水中的鱼一样存在于19世纪的思想中:也就是说,它在其他任何地方都无法呼吸。“随着时间的推移,福柯的反马克思主义只会变得更加恶毒,毫无疑问,他后来的系谱批判也被认为包含了马克思。这篇短文代表了我作为一个在20世纪80年代末和90年代处于福柯英语影响顶峰的人的经历的精华,他在芝加哥大学的社会科学核心课程中教授福柯和马克思的作品,因此,从1998年到2007年,在莫舍邮政的领导下,他们有机会在每周的讲师会议上广泛讨论这些问题。它问道,从福柯的尼采谱系学案例来看,波斯通对马克思的后基础主义和后历史主义解读是什么样子的?福柯对历史主义的敏锐批判使我们有可能以更敏锐的眼光阅读马克思的作品,了解它们与福柯本人赋予它们的各种十九世纪历史主义的概念距离。然而,就谱系学被证明对马克思的理论方法没有批判性的购买力而言,马克思对社会形式的分析仍然适用于后基础主义,作为一个框架,它将范畴自反性作为从社会形式内在的角度对社会统治进行激进批判的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信