Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 4

Small changes in 2.4

I think the text is pretty good. But, there lacks a section on the four levels of analysis, and a section on about thearchive and the apriori. My changes today should have made the text more clear. I have remove three pieces of content: I don't think F. has said about l'enoné "that he believes [it] has been ignored up to this point". Therefore I have removed it. I have also removed: "... he never examines possible statements that could have emerged from such a [discursive] formation." I think it too rare a scientific sport to characterise the archeology? I have also removed: ".. his identity as a historian emerges here." Well, the concept of identity is absolute not the most Foucaultian way of characterising Foucault. Instead, I have mentioned historical method. Flemming Bjerke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.79.9.154 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Foucault & Wittgenstein

Can someone back up the citation of Ludwig Wittgenstein as an influence on Foucault. I know Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is considered by some to be "Post-Strucuralist" but Wittgenstein wasn't well known in France until the 1980`s. Exiledone (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is, for instance, a comment by Hans Sluga, chairman of the Philosophy Department at UC Berkeley at the time of Foucault's presence. '[...] They talked about Wittgenstein, with whom Sluga believes Foucault shares an under-recognized affinity.' To be found at: UC Berkeley's 'illuminations' - online magazine of research in the arts and humanities http://illuminations.berkeley.edu/archives/2005/history.php?volume=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihste (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Results of the recent Request for Comment

Not counting those who were involved in previous discussions, three people responded to my request for comment regarding whether the rumour about Michel Foucault should be mentioned. Two of those editors, both of whom were opposed to mentioning the rumour, were not administrators. The one editor who was an administrator, DGG, supported a brief mention of the rumour; not only that, but he supported it strongly, saying that it 'has to be mentioned.' I think that this is a good indication of what is going to happen in future. Ultimately, it is what administrators decide is appropriate that will decide this issue. Since he was not involved in past arguments, the best thing would probably be for DGG to add a mention of the rumour himself, although I will do it if DGG declines. Skoojal (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus here is determined by the whole community. Generally, I'm just an individual editor when it comes to deciding on content, the same as any other editor. When I comment on a RfC, my views should not get extra weight--except of course if they convince others. (There are a few aspects of sourcing & academic notability where I think I have some expertise, but that does not apply here.) There are also some policy matters where I must enforce rules, such as BLP--but this is an issue of proportional weight, unless it is presented as a fact or without any sources. I think Cahill expresses correctly the state of the views on this so far. I think adding the material at this time would be against consensus. I'd never do something like that. It would not be a good idea if anyone else did either, not until the consensus changes. DGG (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions, but saying that something 'has to be mentioned' is using very strong language. I think the views of administrators inevitably carry more weight than the views of those who are not administrators. As for consensus, there are only two editors who comment on this page regularly against me; it doesn't seem like much of a consensus, especially since there was another, unregistered IP editor (38.117.213.19) who agreed that the rumour should be mentioned. Skoojal (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite disgusting to insist on including dubious claims like that in an article about someone's life. It seems that you have been arguing to include the AIDS rumor in Foucault's article for quite a while. Why? What do you have invested in proving that the rumors should continue to be perpetuated? Seriously, it is baffling and quite disturbing that such a rumor interests you so much. 74.185.0.47 (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear at the outset that all I wanted was for the rumour to be mentioned. I do not want the article to say that the rumour is true. Also, you will note that, despite having repeatedly threatened to add a mention of the rumour to the article, I have never actually done it. If for some reason you want to know why I care so much, e-mail me; a discussion of this would not be appropriate to Wikipedia. Skoojal (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be "mentioned". This isn't the tabloids. You can't just include defamatory rumors about a person just because some questionable character gave an opinion about how much Foucault did nor didn't know about his illness, or whether he did or didn't purposely spread it. We are talking about the late 70s, early 80s when a clear picture of AIDS had not been constructed, which further muddles the assertion that he somehow knew more about his disease than the medical doctors at that time. 74.185.0.47 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the point is of placing mentioned in scare quotes. Your comment that Paglia is a 'questionable character' is itself arguably defamatory. As for your other points, they've already been raised by other editors, and answered long ago, by another IP editor. See the history of this discussion above. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I have no interest in Paglia. That is why I have never edited her page or argued for several months to include questionable and defamatory rumors in her wikipedia article like you've done for Foucault. That is why I question your motives. Everyone knows that Foucault died of AIDS; its in his article. Everyone knows that there were rumors circulating about whether or not he spread it because if you click on the reference link after "mired in controversy" it gives information about it. So what more are you asking for? It is already in the article. You, however, seem to want to give the rumors more visibility. And I think you should really ask yourself why.74.185.0.47 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The points against mentioning this ridiculous, slanderous, and impossible nonsense rumor have never been adequately answered, as you are aware, and an RfC showed clearly that the consensus was against mentioning them, so you ought to drop it now. It's a very odd thing for you to be so obsessed with. csloat (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, I am not going to add a mention of that rumour. I therefore don't have to make any further replies to this. Skoojal (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you would strike "For the time being" from the above. I am not interested in going through this nonsense all over again in a few months. csloat (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to strike out any part of my comments unless ordered by an administrator. Skoojal (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we to assume you will not drop it then, that you are threatening to bring this up again in a month or two and again start a series of arguments and edit wars over putting this puerile homophobic nonsense in this essay? I think that would be highly disruptive. csloat (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I indicated above that no further comment by me about this was required at this time. Skoojal (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Foucault on pedophilia and the age of consent in France

I think it bears mentioning in Foucault's publishing or activism or perhaps an section on his interviews that Foucault supported no minimum age of consent for sex with a child as well as defending the act of sex with a consenting "child." M.F. - "It is therefore within the new legislative framework [...] that a conception of sexuality and above all of the relations between child and adult sexuality will be based; and it is one that is extremely questionable. [...] And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable."

While it is no secret that pedophilia activists had for a time glommed onto the homosexual rights front, the gay rights groups rejected them fairly quickly. Foucault's comments are unambiguous, as are those of the other interviewees. pileggi (talk) 15:29, 09 July 2008

If you find a reliable source discussing this interview in context then perhaps we can use it, but the mere fact that you found some quotes on a geocities page that you interpret as pro-pedophilia really isn't encyclopedic in and of itself. csloat (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Foucault Live (in which the interview appears as translated by Alan Sheridan) on rush delivery, I'll get back to you in a few. pileggi (talk) 15:29, 09 July 2008

Excellent; there are some good interviews in there... please do read the whole text rather than just looking for quotations that can be used to support slanderous charges of child abuse. If there are reliable third party sources interpreting a particular sentence from an interview as an important moment in Foucault's work, we can certainly add such material to the article, but I don't think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia editors to decide that a particular sentence merits such prominence in the absence of any critical commentary highlighting this or that particular sentence. Particularly given the comments of others who have suggested adding this material to the article I would remind everyone that Wikipedia is not the place to give prominence to claims that aren't being made in the reliable sources on the topic. csloat (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A) I never said he was a "child abuser" or even pedophile, so the accusation of it being a "slanderous" charge is completely out of order; I said he defended the act of sex with children as a "freedom" that should be allowed and said it should be decriminalized with no minimum age of consent. I never said he went through with the ACT of child sex. This is misconstruing my words.

B) as it was not a slanderous statement about acts he had done, A third party confirming the act is unnecessary; however, there is confirmation of the original article and the sentiments expressed within.

"La Loi de la pedeur," first printed in Recherches, 37 (april 1979): pp 69-82, was actually in The Passions of Foucault. by James Miller. (New york: Simon and Schuster, 1993). According to Miller there is more text available in Politics, Philosophy and Culture, by Foucault, but I'm knee deep in feminism for comprehensives right now and haven't the time to grab that one.

The particular lines from Miller's text of interest are, "Foucault and Hocquenghem also favored substantially liberalizing the laws regulating sex between adults and children. Indeed, both men argued in principal against the imposition by law of any age of consent." Foucault is quoted later as saying "it could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult" (Miller pp. 257).

Again, I never said he was an acting pedophile, just that he favored removing any impositions that would prevent sex with children of any age (no minimum) as an activist for the right to engage in pedophilia. pileggi (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008

Well I never said you said that, so I think we're in agreement on that point. Others, however, have said just that, and there has been a problem with other editors encouraging sensationalism on this page; that's what my warning was about. Frankly, there is nothing here -- you assert that Foucault "defended the act of sex with children as a freedom," but there is no evidence whatsoever of that. What you have is a quotation from a discussion that Miller has made some sensational comments about; there is no evidence (like the rape charge) that these claims are notable. As I said above, we cannot just pull out a sentence or two from an obscure conversation and promote it as an important moment in Foucauldian thought when the literature does not seem to support the claim that it is such a moment. csloat (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction, you strongly implied that that was my goal: "rather than just looking for quotations that can be used to support slanderous charges of child abuse."

In as much as anything can be unambiguous, stating that there should be no minimum age for sexual consent with a "child" (foucault's word, not mine) clears the way. Moreover, in the rest of the text of La Loi (which is apparently inadmissible until I have it written in Foucault's own blood) heavy doubt is thrown on the believability of a child's testimony in court. The child can agree to sex but not be believed when agreeing to a court's demand of honesty.

So, La Loi de Paduer's being reproduced in one of Foucault's own books (unless one assumes that Miller is lying outright, or simply can't read) is of not interest then? So there must be overwhelming evidence before any mention should be made of his comments? Funny, considering the postmodern response to "evidence" in general. But the defense of heroes is something people are willing to struggle, fight and insult over. I will, when I have time get a copy of Foucault's text, in his unedited own words. When that is done, if I post his comments on the main page, will it be deleted because upper echelon members are not in agreement? (Pileggi (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that you are making a big deal out of an obscure sentence in an interview that no foucault scholars or commentators have seen fit to mention. Why is this sentence more important than Foucault's entire book on madness, for example? If it is, why has no Foucault expert seen fit to even bother mentioning it in the thousands of pages written on Foucault? I also find your interpretation of Foucault particularly sensationalistic -- where has Foucault defended the "freedom" to have sex with children? Are you actually reading Foucault at this point, or just searching for "evidence" of something scandalous? csloat (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny story, a few elections ago I supported Dr. Hageliun the Natural Law candidate. It seemed logical, don't fight the Mississippi with levees, build with floods in mind. It made sense. Then I saw him in an interview talking new age and trying to levitate by hopping on his knees (transcendental-like). Then I took a second look at some of his reasoning. At first glance it seemed to suit my needs and speak to my pre-dispositions (kids, eh?). Now I am more careful before I trust a person's reasoning.

I wasn't seeking something salacious, I stumbled across the Age of Consent information on a translation of a French website, while looking for more information on Foucault for my upcoming comprehensive exams. I was unsure of his reasoning in his work on the modern take on the history of discourse, sexuality, knowledge, power, etc. and was seeking to find out if there was some amazing thing I was missing. (Hey, read 25 books in two months. PhD comps are a pain.). It seemed like he was un-defining anything that would stand in the way if all differences being equal; there is no such thing as a crime until there is a "law," no such thing as a deviant until psychology defines "normal." I agree that homosexuals did not deserve the treatment that France (or at least many French people) had given. What troubled me is that, if everything can be un-defined, it opens the way for some pretty terrible things---(I think this is a good part of the inside joke of Baudrillard's works, and in a certain way the Midrash-inspired readings of Derrida; not that I completely buy either of their logic entirely either, I'm a old fashioned skeptic, in many senses of the word)---Foucault has been cited by the Journal of Paedophilia [sic] and the website fro NAMBLA, (and no, I'm saying he's guilty by association of anything.) Why has this minor interview not made huge circles in talk by scholars? several possibilities: 1) they do not wish to; 2) He didn't make it a constant issue himself, though he also didn't recant; 3) It has not been repeated because it is a hard sell: if someone is brilliant and says one "quackish" thing, it can kill a presidential election or make it difficult to justify a reading list for a class. (there was actually a life drawing class at a Missouri university that was canceled due to protest); 4) Once a person has committed to a path or an action, it is in their best interest to avoid anything that questions that choice, you find this in people who join political or religious cults or people who sign up for the military and then realize the policy is being attacked they start "bull-sharking" (my term, use it ya better cite me ;), which is attacking anything that is in front of them that might be in the way, be it food, friend, or foe. the minor side of Bull-sharking is that if it isn't directly useful, it's tossed to the side (you find this in teh problems between butler's ides on gender performativity and many feminists and queer theorists who try to "do things" with it. Butler, like Derrida says, there's nothing to do, it just is, if you're "doing," you don't get it. I do not think Foucault needs to be expunged from the canon, but a complete and fair view is necessary. I had no plans of making the posting bold print, colorful, or rife with pictures, just a simple statement. BTW saying "no Foucault expert" seems to assume that Miller, who's book is quite thorough and well researched is not doing an "expert" job. I'm not sure how he'd feel about that. (Pileggi (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't matter much to me how Miller feels about anything; the fact that he is not an expert (and that he is a sensationalist) is pretty well accepted among actual experts. In any case, your speculations may be entirely correct about why this sentence is not mentioned by scholars and experts, but the fact remains that it is not. Including it in an encyclopedia entry about Foucault gives it undue prominence as an encyclopedic fact, with or without any bold facing or anything else. If you think it should be a more widely disseminated sentence, publish an article in which you quote it, and perhaps that will stir scholarly discussion. But the Wikipedia article on the topic is not the appropriate place to start disseminating anything. csloat (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

and your source for the character assassination on Miller would be? Please cite sir, so that I might give stronger answers during comps. (Pileggi (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

You should not speak of character assassination when you're trying to add an entire section to the article basically calling Foucault pro-pedophilia. In any case, I'm not going to take your comps for you -- if you can't figure out why Miller is a poor source for this kind of slander on your own, my offering you a citation is not going to help you pass. csloat (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I picked up Foucault's own text Politics, Philosophy, and Culture (Routledge 1988, pp. 271-285) which reproduces the entire interview and discussion in chapter 16 "Sexual morality and the law". While the members (Hocquenghem, Foucault, and Danet) say early on in a parenthetical aside that no one is advocating pedophilia, the rest of the text is a step by step explanation of why pedophilia (as long as there's no violence) is Not something anyone should "stick his nose into." That judges shouldn't have much of a place and reproduces all of the quotes I used in previous posts. While the men claim to not defend the act, they certainly do defend the right, for if there is no law against it and no minimum age the courts shouldn't have a say since "consent sounds contractual" and that's territory that can't be trusted it is tacit approval. Their attempts to defend those that are paid to defend pedophiles have in reality nothing to do with moving to abolish any law against (non-violent) pedophilia. I'll be glad to scan and mail it to you as a PDF or you can run on down to the library and grab a copy. The actual document that Derrida and Deleuze (among many others) signed opposing flimsy wording in the law and harsh punishments for sex with those under 15;it said nothing about having a wide open door to sex with children without any minimum age. That document is available through a translated page on a French site. So, if Foucault himself says it and Alan Sheridan translates it and publishes it...? (Pileggi (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Your interpretation of an obscure passage in an obscure conversation that no respectable scholar has seen fit to mention in a reliable source does not merit an entire section, as noted previously. Please do not make this addition to the text again. Thanks! csloat (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

are you an official admin? (Pileggi (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

this is a silly debate. Foucault got involved in a philosophical discussion about the relationship between freedom and the law; it turned to sexuality (not surprising, given the way most people think) and Foucault tried to extend his philosophy to cover it, and (also not surprisingly) the philosophy didn't do a real good job of accounting for real-world issues. and from this you want to say that Foucault favored pedophilia? that's like saying that those seventies feminists who equated housewives with prostitutes (on the grounds that both got paid by men for sex) actually advocated prostitution. this misrepresents Foucault's writing, and it misconstrues his fundamental philosophical position on sex, and its only value is that it's titillating. it's trivia: drop it and move on to something meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source showing that Foucault took this position, then it should definitely be in the article. Skoojal (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

no, not unless there's some indication that this reflects some significant aspect of Foucault's life or work. I'm sure there's plenty of things that any of us have said or done in our lives that we wouldn't want engraved on our tombstones as who we are. there is plenty enough to criticize Foucault for reasonably (don't even get me started on tearing apart his theoretical perspective); no need to stoop to trivial misrepresentations and snippy gossip to make him look bad.

let's put it another way. he said it, fine - now find me a secondary source that says this is a significant part of his life's work. there is no shortage of secondary sources who have written about Foucault; convince me this thing is considered prominent by a number of them, or give it up and let it go. --Ludwigs2 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that anyone has ever bothered to mention this shows that it's significant (which is a broad enough term). Whether Foucault would approve of this being mentioned here or not is irrelevant. Skoojal (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip column or a scandal rag. people will mention the stupidest things, just because they get a rise out of it; that doesn't mean they need to be reported as important points. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

←There are at least two problems with adding this piece by Pileggi is a) undue weight and b) OR - Pileggi added an interpretation of a primary source to the article (that piece starting with "while Hocquenghem, Foucault, and Danet say early on, in a parenthetical aside" - that's not acceptable in this encyclopedia. We record the interpretations of primary sources that are made in secondary sources - we don't do our own. It should also be a red flag for anyone who has read site policy that the other paragraph begins with "it bears mentioning" and is cited only to a primary source. What sources show that this is bears mentioning and/or is a significant piece of information?
I'm removing part of the piece for violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Do not re-add it in its present form. It's up to those who want to add this to prove showing multiple third party reliable sources that this wording is accurate, and reflects what the sources say - not what we interpret them to say. I would suggest that if further information on Foucualt and the age of consent is to be added a short note stating what it actually says in Miller's book and what it says in Pickett's book On the Use and Abuse of Foucault for Politics and in Macey's biography of Foucault would be much better.
As this is a disputed section I am going to suggest that parties who want to propose such a section do so here on the talk page & then build consensus to add it (but be aware it must be written in accordance with site policy)--Cailil ^talk 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a third opinion, but not one so definitive for me to remove your entry from the Third opinion page. I think Cailil makes a good suggestion. There are places in the article a short mention might be relevant, but you have to specifically propose what you want where. Also, does he have enough "controversial" views that others have labeled as controversial that he should get a "controversies" section? Carol Moore 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The problem is that these things are only "controversies" for Wikipedia editors skoojal and pileggi. There are no reliable sources citing them as "controversies"; in fact, other than Miller, there doesn't seem to be anyone writing about this at all. It's amazing to me that people would fight tooth and nail to put this sort of poisonous innuendo into the article (in a separate section even) when we don't even have sections on ideas that are much more recognizably and demonstrably part of Foucault's opus (e.g. governmentality, space, etc.) The problem is that certain users are trying to make Wikipedia the place to reveal supposed scandals that aren't really discussed by scholars and other reliable sources who write about Foucault. This is not the place for that. csloat (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

sad state of affairs... --Ludwigs2 17:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree only reliable sources should be used, it should be noted that this very issue was just a big brouhaha in the libertarian party nominating process where a grandmother running for president expressed similar ideas from a libertarian viewpoint, not because she supports or encourages pedophilia, but for other intellectual reasons (not all of which I personally agree with). The point is this is part of larger discussion of childrens' rights to declare independence of parents and/or adults at a young age. So it is not necessarily just a discussion based on trying to discredit/scandalize Foucault or supporting NAMBLA. It all depends on what is written where in the article and what the sources are. Carol Moore 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

oh, I agree. I'm just responding from a broader knowledge of Foucault's work. he spent most of his life thinking about problems of power and human freedom; the suggestion that he would advocate pedophilia even implicitly (since pedophilia is predefined as a power-perversion) is completely out of character. --Ludwigs2 00:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If the mention of this issue were completely outrageous in its current form (it probably was in its original form), I assume Cailil would have removed it. Since he did not do that, I have seen no reason not to restore it. Skoojal (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume what you will, but the reasons for removing this material are very well explained above. Don't add it to the article again please. Thank you. csloat (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider your reasons satisfactory. If my assumption about Cailil's reasoning is wrong, then he can, and doubtless will, correct me. Skoojal (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that there are other editors on this page besides yourself and Cailil. If you don't consider my reasons satisfactory, it is your obligation to explain yourself. csloat (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who didn't see the added text to the main page Because "Commodore" removed it right quick-like: A) my main source is Now Foucault's Politics, Philosophy, & Culture translated by Alan Sheridan (ch.16)---read it with an independent eye (not a skeptic or a fanboy); B) don't post when frustrated with another editor, it leads you to poor wording; C) When I repost it will be with a more objective wording, only using Faulcault's words and none of my own analysis; D) Miller is only a secondary source now; E) the new repost will not be in so large a manner, but as a minor section either within discussion of that text (PPC) or foucault's advocacy. (Pileggi (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry but even with the better sourcing it doesn't belong here for the reasons explained above. To summarize: (1) not notable. Nobody considers the sentence referred to important except for you and skoojal. Find reliable sources treating this as an important issue in Foucault's work and we can talk. (2) See WP:UNDUE. (3) interpretation. You are reporting Miller's interpretation of this non-notable sentence as if it were fact. (Your rewrite compounds the problem as you are no longer even attributing the view to Miller). As others noted here, Foucault was not "advocating" a particular political stance; he was responding to a question in a conversation about philosophy. That his answer can be interpreted in this way may point to a problem in his philosophy but let's let published scholars interpret it that way and discuss it before we bring it up in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. (4) This is a tiny sentence in an obscure conversation that is in no way an important part of Foucault's work. There are a great many ideas that Foucault has written entire books about that aren't even mentioned here. Why focus on this one sentence except for scandal value? Really, it is ridiculous; why are you creating a mountain out of this non-issue? If Foucault were living this would be a clear WP:BLP violation and both of you would have been blocked for continuing to restore it. Because he is dead and can't sue you can continue this nonsense forever, but that doesn't make it right. csloat (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you Commodore - you saved me a good bit of typing.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Csloat's comments above: the issue of notability is a red herring. Notability affects which subjects can have articles about them, not what can go in articles (and nor is it the same thing as importance). A brief mention would not be undue. Skoojal (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh please give it up Skoojal; this has gotten ridiculous. Re-read the four arguments above; you cannot dismiss them all with a phony charge of red herring. This isn't a tabloid. csloat (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia has suddenly changed its policies, my claim that notability does not directly limit the content of articles is correct. See the article. Skoojal (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every single sentence Foucault uttered is encyclopedic Skoojal. If nobody is having this discussion about Foucault's alleged proclivities in reliable sources, it does not belong here. Wikipedia is not just a repository for every random factoid or sentence you can find. See WP:IINFO and WP:NOR for details on the relevant Wikipedia policies. And, finally, as I pointed out before, there are four independent arguments above; you only seem to take issue with one of them. csloat (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

just to be fair, Skooj is right that 'notable' is the wrong word (that seems to be a common, if understandable, confusion among editors). the correct policy is undue weight, since it is apparent that this is an minority opinion that has no real impact on the academic consensus about Foucault's work. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but all that means is that "notability" is not an absolute policy requirement, not that notability is of no consequence in determining whether some information is encyclopedic. But you're right, if one needs to point specifically to WP policy, UNDUE is the right one. It just seems strange that the only reason Skoojal seems to be able to give that this information should be in the article is that it isn't expressly precluded by policy. csloat (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

it's a misinterpretation - he thinks the information should be in the article because (a) he thinks it's important and relevant, and (b) some source mentions it, when in fact information should be included when reliable sources think it's important and relevant. I really ought to find the right place to clarify that in policy... --Ludwigs2 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since one of the main reasons why Foucault is famous is because of what he wrote about sex, it seems rather obvious that details about what Foucault said about sex have their place here. Skoojal (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all that every word Foucault says about sex must be reprinted here. Shall we go ahead and include every word published in all three volumes of History of Sexuality then?? Let's stick with what is obvious to scores of published experts on this material rather than with what is obvious to Skoojal, ok? csloat (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A brief mention of what Foucault said about a controversial issue is not equivalent to repeating every word published in a book. Skoojal (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's stick to what scores of published experts consider important and controversial, not what someone named Skoojal claims to think is important on Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skooj - Foucault is not Dr. Ruth. he spent his career talking about the philosophy of sex as part of an ongoing examination of the impact of human society on the individual. yeesh... --Ludwigs2 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Csloat's comment above is uncivil and does not assume good faith. I do consider Foucault's views on pedophilia important. I don't know why anyone would question that. In reply to Ludwigs2, I don't see how pedophilia is unrelated to the philosophy of sex, or how it does not relate to the impact of human society on the individual. Skoojal (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For a transcription of that ominous "Sexual morality and the law", look at http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/danger.htm

While quarreling about the opinion or one-time-only-statement he arrived at, it would undoubtedly worthwile to try to reconstruct the reasons for his assumptions, being outlined in the French Wikipedia article entitled "La Loi de la pudeur", as for instance the danger of a psychatriasation of society and the installation of social control masked through the vehicle of sexuality, the problematization of children being viewed as absolutely incapable of speaking for themselves [and testifying about their sexual relations], etc. For general information on that discussion about "Petitions against the age of consent laws", in which not only Foucault, but a considerable number of French intellectuals engaged, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age_of_consent_laws Its basis, as you will know well when having read the above, is a certain open letter in "Le Monde", adressed to the parliament. Its text is accessible in English on http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00aug29b1_from_1977.htm There's some other interview a few weeks later in which MF is confronted with and reproached for what he said in this discussion mentioned above. In that one he clearly indicates [answering the interviewer questioning his bold comments] that he's being misunderstood, since what he solely wanted was to throw up questions to politics [as always!] without offering answers, wondering about the difficulty of regulations one imposes on the people's sexuality and the precaution that has to be paid to this very peculiar area, a problem that he for himself would call almost unsolvable. I'll try to find it in my "Dits et Ecrits" and translate it into English. Anyways I suggest discussing the new material I have brought into this discussion, since it establishes a small common ground of facts available for everyone here. I haven't checked the "Sexual morality and the law" with my "Dits et Ecrits" yet but it seems to be alright on the first glance, gonna look it up. Btw, neither the article on Derrida nor Beauvoir nor Sartre mentions this occurence. rihste (rihste) 22:27, 31 July 2008 MET

Thank you for the links and explanation. Apparently we already have a Wikipedia article on this petition, as well as an entire article on the conversation itself. I don't see a lot of evidence of notability enough to justify a separate article on this topic (and that article includes a lot of non-RS material), but it's clear that if anyone does decide to add this material back it should be much more accurately contextualized rather than turned into a scandalous accusation. csloat (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Foucault's view of rape

I notice that this article says nothing about Foucault's views on rape. If I recall correctly, Foucault was in favour of abolishing rape as a separate crime and having it treated instead as simply a form of assault. If I find a source for this, does anyone have a problem with my adding a mention of it? Skoojal (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your history with dubious but sensationalistic rumors and sourcing, I'm certainly not going to take a position on whether I would "have a problem" with you mentioning it until I see what you actually intend to write. I've read just about everything by Foucault that's ever been translated into English (save the most recent translations of the College de France lectures), and I've never seen nor heard of this suggestion. I've also read numerous feminist critiques of Foucault; you'd think this would have come up there. csloat (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick web search for "Michel Foucault" and rape produced this as the first hit [1]. I am not proposing to use this as a source, obviously. I need something better. But yes, this does appear to have been Foucault's stance on rape. Skoojal (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Foucault text is being referred to here? Recognize too that this is quite different from what you wrote above, but either way, I don't think we can attribute views to Foucault based on a yahoo! user's summary of a secondary source. Anyway they've narrowed down the year for you so it shouldn't be hard to find the primary source this is allegedly from. Let us know. csloat (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will say more about this when I find a proper source. Skoojal (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The views of Foucault on rape were reported in the Miller text (from the same page actually, already cited in the section on age of consent). He was in favor of abolishing any criminality in regard to sex. He thought that rape should be prosecuted as a simple violent assault. "There's no difference, in principal, between sticking one's fist into someone's face or someone's penis into their genetalia" (Miller 257). Foucault said it during a roundtable discussion and it was printed in "Enfermement, psyciatrie, prison," in Change 32-33 (1977) pp. 97.pileggi (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008

Thanks for the sources; you should be clear that the quote you have is from Miller, not Foucault. Also, we still see nothing about notability here. Foucault wrote entire books on topics that are not covered in the article; to cover this incendiary topic based on a single quotation from an interview that is considered important only by the sensationalistic Miller seems to be really problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE. csloat (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: get rid of the section 'Criticisms of Foucault'

I suggest that the section 'Criticisms of Foucault' should be removed. Such criticism of Foucault as is relevant to his biography should be integrated into the main body of the article. The rest should probably be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started to cut that section back a little. I have removed the mention of several people who have criticized Foucault; since their specific criticisms of Foucault are not mentioned (and in Paglia's case, there's apparently a consensus that some of them should not be mentioned) it was pointless to list them here. Skoojal (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You mention that including Paglia was a bad idea and then after an extended argument about Durkheim, make this edit. Is the whole point of the Durkheim tangent a way of coming back to Paglia? Again, I urge you to read WP:POINT. csloat (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of discussing Durkheim is to try to ensure a balanced article. Your speculation about my motives is impossible to reply to and off the point. Skoojal (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "speculating about your motives" -- I am reading what you explicitly wrote about your motives in an edit summary and asking you to explain it. The fact that you refuse to, and instead turn this into another baseless attack on me, says a lot. csloat (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Emile Durkheim

I have recently added Emile Durkheim to the list of people who influenced Foucault. See for example Camille Paglia's comments: 'Foucault is the Cagliostro of our time. Nowhere is this more evident than in his treatment of Emile Durkheim, his true source...an entire book could be written applying Harold Bloom's theory of anxiety of influence to Foucault's desperate concealment of his massive indebtedness to Durkheim, to whom he barely, dismissively, and inaccurately refers...American humanists, untutored in sociology, are knocked out by Foucault's daring: analyze crime and punishment, prisons and penal codes. Gee, I wish I'd thought of that! Well, Foucault didn't think of it either. It's in Durkheim's The Division of Labour in Society (1893). Foucault extends Durkheim's argument one step further but covers up the influence. Look at Durkheim's Primitive Classification (1903), and you will see the shadow of Foucault's phrases about taxonomy. Durkheim is everywhere in Foucault.' That's from Sex, Art, and American Culture, pages 224-225. See also, as an additional source, Peter Dews's Logics of Disintegration, pages 3 and 4. Dews identifies Durkheim as an influence on many French thinkers, Foucault included. Skoojal (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Durkheim is definitely an influence, though Paglia as usual overstates the case. csloat (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Emile Durkheim's influence was fairly indirect as he probably did not read him to the same extent he read the others. Its more likely similar ideas crept in via what he learned from other thinkers such as Althusser, Canguilhem and Claude Levi-Strauss, who were directly influenced by Durkheim. Paglia is also unabashedly biased against Foucault and her explanation of Durkheim's "influence" is clearly colored with contempt. It would be wise to treat her comment with extreme caution. Yet there's no denying some form of influence, such that can be found in most European social theorists in the past 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.95.200 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Well said. csloat (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove Durkheim from that list, 75.167.95.200, and I will re-add Durkheim. If you want a long struggle over this, fine. I'm sure it will become a fascinating spectacle. Probably the only real reason why you removed Durkheim is because you don't like Paglia. This is not a valid reason, and nor is Durkheim's influence on Foucault only a matter of Paglia's opinion. Skoojal (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the edit in which you removed Durkheim, you noted that, "there are glaring differences between there [sic] social theory." No doubt, yet there are also big differences between Marx and Foucault, and Marx is still listed as an influence. You also wrote, "This is for direct influences only, as in what Foucault personally read" So you're saying that Foucault, sometimes regarded as a serious intellectual historian, didn't read one of the most important figures in the history of sociology? Skoojal (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Durkheim was definitely an influence on Bataille, who uses him as a source, and Bataille in turn influenced Foucault. Skoojal (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be easy to show direct influence, Skoojal, simply indicate where Foucault discusses Durkheim? A quick scan of some books on my shelf does find him cited -- an essay on the history of penality -- in the bibliography to Discipline and Punish, but I don't recall a specific discussion of that text in the book. I'm not sure we can call him an "influence" based on that single reference. I agree with the anon that Paglia is a poor source for such information, and certainly the way it is quoted above -- it's basically an accusation of plagiarism -- it does not belong here. That said, however, Foucault did engage in dialogue with other theorists whom he didn't name, yet understood his readers to know, such as Marcuse and Reich in History of Sexuality. It is possible that Paglia is referring to such a moment in Foucault (I'm not familiar with the Durkheim essays to which she refers, though I have read a bit of his work on crime and punishment, and I would not be surprised at all if parts of Discipline and Punish were in dialogue with those ideas). If that is the case, some scholar must have commented on it in peer reviewed work that isn't laced with scandal and accusation. Either way, Paglia's claim is pretty absurd. Why would Foucault cover up a "massive indebtedness" to Durkheim when, if such indebtedness was there, every one of his contemporaries would notice it and comment on it? If Foucault "inaccurately" refers to Durkheim, how could he be copying him? What is it specifically that Foucault writes that is massively indebted to Durkheim? Ahh, it's where he says to "analyze crime and punishment, prisons and penal codes." Do you really think Durkheim was the only one doing that before Foucault? Do you think that Foucault was pretending that doing that the analysis of crime and punishment was his contribution to intellectual history? If "Foucault extends Durkheim's argument one step further," doesn't that mean he isn't just copying Durkheim?? If "Durkheim is everywhere in Foucault," why can't Paglia name a specific place in Foucault where Durkheim is??? csloat (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had seen the point of Paglia's comment, you'd realize that showing where Foucault discusses Durkheim is unnecessary. Furthermore, Paglia was not my only source, a fact which makes most of your comments beside the point. Do you have any sources showing that Durkheim did not influence Foucault? Your comment that 'the way it is quoted above -- it's basically an accusation of plagiarism -- it does not belong here' perhaps indicates willful misunderstanding - Paglia's accusation was placed here on the talk page, not in the article. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You yourself admitted that 'Durkheim is definitely an influence.' Skoojal (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) It is quite necessary to show where Foucault discusses Durkheim if you are going to cite him as an influence. Simply quoting Paglia's wild and feeble accusation is not enough.

(2) Paglia is the only source you have cited here; if you have another, please feel free to let us know any time. Preferably if your source actually is Foucault. Your question "do you have any sources showing that Durkheim did not influence Foucault," is a clear attempt to shift the burden of proof. But I can nevertheless cite such a source -- Foucault.

(3) Please read WP:AGF before you make wild accusations yourself, like that I am "wilfully" misunderstanding you. I understand you fine, and I realize you put this baseless accusation here on the talk page, but it is still not appropriate to use this baseless accusation as a source for another claim that you wish to put on the article page. Get it?

(4) Yes I assumed Durkheim was an influence. Then when I went to check on it and found I was mistaken; at least, I could not verify it with reference to Foucault's work. As I said, if I knew more about Durkheim, I might find that Foucault is in dialogue with him without naming him, as he does with Marcuse. But if that was the case there would be plenty of other secondary sources mentioning this, and I know of none. So it is your burden of proof to show us where this is the case. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to show where Foucault discusses Durkheim. If sources show that Durkheim was an influence even if Foucault does not discuss him, that has to be accepted. Try reading my first post on this subject again: I mentioned Peter Dews's Logics of Disintegration, a rather well known book, and one I'd assume that you would be familiar with. Skoojal (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think you can cite Foucault to show that he was not influenced by Durkheim, by all means do so, but you'll also have to explain why any such claim by Foucault is more convincing than the contrary claims by Dews and Paglia. Skoojal (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote in the article, that Durkheim 'influenced Foucault via Levi-Strauss, Althusser and Canguilhem.' What are you trying to say here? Do you, like 75.167.95.200, think that Foucault actually did not read Durkheim? It's a bit of a stretch to claim that, since Durkheim is one of the sources for Discipline and Punish. Plus, you missed out Bataille from that list. I can only wonder why. Perhaps adding yet another figure to that list would make it more obvious that Foucault must have read and been influenced by Durkheim directly. Skoojal (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that part but I reverted to it because it was more specific and clear than your version. I did not say Foucault has not read Durkheim, in fact, if you read any of my comments above, you would see that I noted that Foucault cites an essay of his in Discipline and Punish. You say it is not necessary to say where Foucault discusses Durkheim, but it is if you want to cite him as an influence. You mention Dews, where does he cite Durkheim as an influence and exactly what does he say? (Again, I am alarmed by your adamant refusal to consider anything Foucault has actually written in your absolutely vehement defense of some bizarre positions. Why not just read Foucault and work from there?) You again shift the burden of proof and make the utterly absurd and laughable demand that I cite sources to prove the negative. You make the additionally absurd statement that I have to show why Foucault is a more credible source on Foucault than Dews or Paglia -- I have a hard time believing you are serious. Anyway I don't know what Dews said, but I explained extensively above why Paglia's argument completely lacks any credibility whatsoever. You conceded all of those points so let's agree to dispense with Paglia. As for "leaving bataille out of the list," again, you are surely joking? I didn't change anything with regard to Bataille and I have no doubt of Bataille's influence on Foucault -- simply reading "Preface to Transgression" is enough to make it clear. But you're saying that because Durkheim influenced Bataille and Bataille influenced Foucault therefore Durkheim influenced Foucault? What is that, the transitive property of intellectual history? And then you claim that that is evidence that Foucault read and was influenced by Durkheim directly? And then accuse me of trying to cover it up?? It's really difficult to argue with you under these circumstances -- if I am understanding what you are saying, the arguments are so illogical that it's difficult to take them seriously.

Look, if your point is that Foucault read Durkheim, well it's most likely true. Durkheim is a major intellectual figure in France at the time. But it's like saying Foucault was influenced by Freud. (And, in fact, I have even posited the possibility that Discipline and Punish is actually about responding to Durkheim in the same way the History of Sexuality is about responding to Freud and the Freudo-Marxians). Of course he was, in the same sense that you can't write about psychology in France in the 1960/70s without having been "influenced by" Freud. And you can't write about sociology (and even specifically about the prison system) in France in the 1960-70s without owing some debt to Durkheim. But it would be best, if Durkheim was truly a direct influence, to be able to explain specifics -- not just, hey, Durkheim wrote about the history of prisons and so did Foucault! That's absurd; so did Bentham, Beccaria, Belleyme, and many others; what specific argument of Durkheim's influenced which specific argument of Foucault? I'm not saying the evidence isn't there -- as I said, I assumed it was in the beginning until I actually looked for it, prompted by this discussion -- but I am saying that you have yet to present any. csloat (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of what you say above is just you repeating yourself. You claim, once again, that it's necessary to show where Foucault acknowledged Durkheim as an influence in order to show that Durkheim influenced Foucault. The implication is that if Durkheim did influence Foucault, Foucault would have acknowledged that. This is an arbitrary assumption on your part. Skoojal (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As for Dews, here is a long quote:

'Behind the figure of Levi-Strauss, it often seems to be Durkheim who is providing the fundamental assumptions for the theoretical enterprises of the middle sixties. For it was Durkheim who, long before Levi-Strauss, abandoned the philosophy in which he had been trained out of dissatisfaction with its literary and unscientific character, its empty dialectical ingenuity, yet remained committed to the resolution of philosophical problems with social-scientific means. Furthermore, a number of distinctive features of Durkheim's programme can be seen to have left their stamp on the structuralist work of the sixties. One can note, firstly, a resolute objectivism, combined with the conviction that systems of collective representations form an ontologically autonomous level of reality, a convinction which distinguishes this tradition from the type of reductionist positivism more familiar in the English-speaking world - philosophically an attempt is made to steer between empiricism and Kantianism, by treating categorical structures not as immutable features of the human mind, but as embedded in social contexts; secondly, a stress on the priority of social and symbolic systems over the individual, who acts under their constraint, and on the fact that the operation of these systems is unconscious, determining the individual in ways of which he or she cannot be aware; and lastly, a critique of introspection as a mode of knowledge, and a belief that philosophical speculation depends unwarranted extrapolation from the experience of the individual. Traces of this constellation of attitudes appear in the work of figures such as Foucault, Althusser and Barthes during the 1960s, with a persistence suggesting deeper cultural roots than the work of Levi-Strauss.'

That's from Peter Dews's Logics of Disintegration: Post-Structuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory, pages 3 and 4. Though Dews is not quite explicit about it, this obviously amounts to saying that Durkheim influenced Foucault, as well as everyone else. Skoojal (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To respond to another specific point, you wrote, 'you're saying that because Durkheim influenced Bataille and Bataille influenced Foucault therefore Durkheim influenced Foucault?' No. I am saying that because Foucault was influenced by many people who were influenced by Durkheim (Bataille was only one of them) that it is not plausible to say that Durkheim did not influence Foucault. Skoojal (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If I repeated myself it's because you did not respond to the argument. The Dews quote above does not specifically say anything here about Durkheim directly influencing Foucault; it says "traces of this constellation of attitudes" (in durkheim through levi-strauss) "appear in the work of figures such as Foucault, Althusser and Barthes during the 1960s." So, no, Durkheim did not specifically influence Foucault any more than he influenced Althusser and Barthes (and others "such as" these), and we don't see Durkheim mentioned on either page as a direct influence. So based on this, no, it should not go in here. You admit this yourself when you say Dews is "not quite explicit" and that Durkheim influenced foucault "as well as everyone else." There is no point in putting in people who have influenced "everyone else" as an influence because you would have to list the whole of Western philosophy. Why aren't Aristotle, Philodemus, and Montaigne listed as influences? Do you deny that Foucault would have read Montaigne? csloat (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, to use your flipping of the burden of proof below, can you show me a source that proves that Montaigne did NOT influence Foucault? Do you see how it seems silly when put like this, yet this is what you are doing with Durkheim? I am going to remove Durkheim entirely as you have failed completely to provide convincing evidence that he should be listed prominently here. csloat (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The brunt of Dews's comments is obviously that Durkheim influenced Foucault. The last part of the Dews quote, ' Traces of this constellation of attitudes appear in the work of figures such as Foucault, Althusser and Barthes during the 1960s, with a persistence suggesting deeper cultural roots than the work of Levi-Strauss' plainly does not say that Durkheim influenced Foucault via Levi-Strauss; it implies direct influence. Durkheim is the 'deeper cultural roots' in question. As per Aristotle and the others, they aren't mentioned because they were not immediate influences on modern French thought in the way that Durkheim was. Skoojal (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No; the brunt of Dews' comments have to do with Levi-Strauss, and then he mentions Foucault among other authors (whose pages, I note, you are not going to to insert Durkheim as an influence) as theorists in whom one can find "traces" of a "constellation of attitudes." That does not "imply direct influence"; it implies the complete opposite. Your arbitrary claim that we should limit this list to "modern French thought" (should we remove Nietzsche, Kant, Marx from this list then?) is convenient for your argument but it isn't explained at all. csloat (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you consider what Dews says, the only reasonable conclusion is that the deeper cultural roots are Durkheim. How is a comment that something suggests 'deeper cultural roots than the work of Levi-Strauss' primarily about Levi-Strauss? It points away from Levi-Strauss, to something else. You seem to have misunderstood my other point; I referred to 'immediate influences on modern French thought', not to specifically French thinkers. Skoojal (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you are fixated on the last sentence of the long paragraph, the brunt of which was about Levi-Strauss. The last sentence mentions several thinkers as bearing traces of a constellation of attitudes -- it does not at all say anything about direct influence. Why are you being obstinate about this when you are so obviously incorrect? As for your still-arbitrary limitation to "immediate influences on modern French thought," that still doesn't explain Kant, for example, and you have still given us no reason to support that particular standard. csloat (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys - and I mean everyone - lets keep things civil. I'm asking both of you to refactor some of your remarks to one other.
Skoojal it is not acceptable to accuse csloat of "willful misunderstanding" (WP:AGF) and csloat it's wrong to call Skoojal's request "laughable" (WP:EQ). Everybody must stop attributing views and speculating about each other's motives - conduct like this breaches WP:AGF.
You're both being asked to withdraw (by striking or refactoring) all inflammatory remarks made in this discussion and to keep things civil and on-track from now on.
All material in articles require sources - that is all that needs to be said.
And properly reliable and duely weighted sources which reinforce the material that is to be added, is all that needs to given in reply.
Also Skoojal please reconsider what you said to 75.167.95.200 here--Cailil ^talk 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done; sorry about that, Skoojal, I really don't mean to ridicule you -- I really am perplexed though because I find some of your arguments quite illogical; perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your logic. Also, I have to disagree with Cailil's claim that "all material require sources" is "all that needs to be said." There often (as in the case of Paglia) will need to be specific discussion of whether a source is appropriate for a specific claim. csloat (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify csloat, I was trying make that point by saying "And properly reliable and duely weighted sources which reinforce the material that is to be added, is all that needs to given in reply. The source(s) can always be questioned as regards WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE etc) and other policies--Cailil ^talk 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly well aware that I do not have sole control over this article, or anything on Wikipedia. If for some reason people insist upon expunging all reference to Durkheim from the Foucault article, I can't stop that. I do not think, however, that there are any good grounds for removing mention of Durkheim. I have given two sources that point to Durkheim as an influence on Foucault; no one has provided a single source to show that Durkheim did not influence Foucault. Skoojal (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see burden of proof and stop asking for people to prove a negative. Thanks! csloat (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself: I provided two sources. You provided nothing. Skoojal (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the issue of consistency here. It happens that no source is given in the article for any of the influences on Foucault (not even Nietzsche - the source of the Foucault quote is not given). Why, then, is it this particular influence on Foucault that most of all needs a source? Rather than rush to remove Durkheim, a more consistent, and thus more defensible, approach would be to add citation needed tags to everything. Skoojal (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself - you provided two sources that substantiate nothing. Please see burden of proof and stop asking for sources to prove the negative. This particular influence needs a citation because it is under dispute. There is no dispute about whether Nietzsche influenced Foucault. (but if you plan to dispute it, we need look no further than "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.") csloat (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that the sources substantiate nothing is your opinion. Your complaint about proving negatives is an admission that you have nothing better. Everything in Wikipedia needs a citation, for the very good reason that people's ideas about what is obviously true differ. Citations are used precisely because they solve that problem. Skoojal (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As for there being a dispute about whether Durkheim influenced Foucault, the only person disputing it is you, and you presumably don't plan to cite yourself as a source. Skoojal (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, your claim that your sources substantiate this is your opinion, and it is demonstrably incorrect, per above. Did you read burden of proof? I suggest you do so, as it will help in future debates. It really looks bad for you to continue demanding that I prove that Foucault was not influenced by Durkheim. Again, can you prove he was not influenced by Philodemus? Do you really not understand why your request is absurd? I don't see Ice Cube listed on the influences, can you prove that Foucault was not influenced by Ice Cube? As for citing myself as a source, I again have a hard time believing you are being serious. The dispute is here on the talk page, and that is why the request for sources came up; I am not suggesting that we put something in the article about such a dispute. The dispute is over whether we have enough evidence to put this claim in Wikipedia. It is astoundingly clear that we do not. csloat (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison of Emile Durkheim to Ice Cube says a lot about the seriousness of your contributions to this discussion. Skoojal (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No; it says a lot about the seriousness of your argument. The absurdity highlights the fatal flaw in your demand that I produce evidence proving that someone did NOT influence Foucault. csloat (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Skoojal, do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Edits like your most recent, deleting all the influences, could (and probably should) get you blocked. csloat (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than complain about what I did, why don't you actually find sources for the claims about who influenced Foucault, and carefully qualify those claims, so that the article says both what the nature of the influence was or may have been, and who says the influence was there? That's what I've done for Durkheim. Skoojal (talk)

Which claim do you need a source for? You mentioned Nietzsche and I provided the source. Skoojal, this has gotten ridiculous to the point that I am considering opening a user conduct RfC or making a report to ANI. We know that Nietzsche, Kant, Bataille, etc. are influences because Foucault has written openly about their influence (in fact, in the case of those three, has written articles specifically devoted to their influence on his work). We don't have any similar evidence of Durkheim. All we have is Paglia's nonsense plagiarism charge and Dews' offhanded comment that you find echoes of Durkheim reverberating throughout modern French thought. But you're not adding durkheim to every french thinker (not even the three named by Dews); you are only adding it to Foucault. Why are you doing this? It seems extremely disruptive. csloat (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want make a whole big performance about attacking me, then I can't stop you. We'll see who who will emerge out of that looking worse. I hope that anything you do will be focused specifically on the current issue on this page and not just be a way of complaining about me in general. That Paglia's suggestion about Foucault is nonsense is your opinion; it is presented in the article as Paglia's opinion and nothing more. As per other articles, that's a different issue, isn't it? Wait and see what I do. Wikipedia has an assume good faith policy; you are ignoring it. Skoojal (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A big performance out of attacking you? Please. All I'm doing is asking you to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and to address the issues here directly. You say Paglia being nonsense is my opinion -- that is true but not the issue. What is nonsense (and what is the issue) is your claim that Paglia's ridiculous and vicious attack on Foucault somehow proves that Foucault was directly influenced by Durkheim. That is what is nonsense, and it is not just my opinion -- I explained it very carefully in a long paragraph above which you ignored (The paragraph starts with "This should be easy..."). It is you who are ignoring (and openly flouting) wikipedia policy, Skoojal, so please be very careful with your accusations. csloat (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have dealt with the substantive issues you mention below. Skoojal (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not. If the only claim you now want to make is that Paglia thinks Durkheim influenced Foucault, fine, but that claim doe3s not belong in the article. Paglia is not an expert on Foucault at all; why is her empty attack considered even noteworthy? And if that is the whole of the claim, it should be worded as such -- "Paglia considers Durkheim an influence of Foucault" rather than "Critics of Foucault" (which suggests multiple), and certainly the word "direct" does not belong in there. csloat (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you know either that Paglia isn't an expert on Foucault, or that it is necessary to be an expert on Foucault in order to see that Durkheim likely influenced Foucault? If the influence is as obvious as Paglia thinks, she wouldn't even have to be an expert to see it. In reply to your other comments, I'll note that you seem to be forgetting that I cited two different critics. Skoojal (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Expert on Foucault" is not like "covert agent"; when one is an expert on Foucault, one tends to write articles and books that are about or substantially influenced by Foucault. Paglia has done neither. One also tends to speak at conferences and events involving Foucault's work, and to be cited and taken seriously by other experts on Foucault. And, no, it is not necessary to be an expert on Foucault to see an influence, but the fact that Paglia sees outright plagiarism and most actual Foucault experts not only don't see plagiarism, but don't even see the need to comment, suggests that it is Paglia who is incorrect. And yes I remember that you spoke about Dews as well, but Dews does not even come close to citing Durkheim as a "primary" influence. csloat (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia didn't use the word 'plagiarism', which means copying something that someone else wrote word for word, or paraphrasing it, and then presenting it as one's own work. No one, including Paglia, suggests that this applies here. Skoojal (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but that word is a lot closer to what she describes than anything Dews wrote. csloat (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paglia makes this point in a stronger way than Dews, and focuses it more narrowly on Foucault, but other than that there is relatively little difference. Skoojal (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Paglia does not "make this point" at all. She makes a totally different point, one that she is completely unable to back up with a single shred of evidence. I explained very carefully at the bottom of the section below why these two claims are utterly different and, as usual, you ignored my argument, preferring to repeat your claim that Dews mentions "direct" influence without ever giving any evidence to support your claims. Again, if you think these two are making the same claim there is no sense in arguing with you. csloat (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The books on Foucault I have looked at deal with Durkheim in a most curious way. Quite often, they don't mention Durkheim. When they do mention him, one often finds something like this, from Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow's Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics: 'The story Foucault is telling, however, is not the triumphant scientific one of Durkheim, in which the emergence of a science of society announces the increasing autonomy of the individual and the objectivity of the social.' p. 143. Why would Dreyfus and Rabinow deny a similarity between Foucault and Durkheim? The only plausible reason is that some such similarity may naturally suggest itself; hence the need to deny it. If a similarity would not suggest itself, there would be no need to deny that there was one.

Or then there's this, from James Miller's The Passion of Michel Foucault: 'Despite his newfound appreciation for the diversity of the liberal persuasion as it emerged in the nineteenth century, Foucault conspicuously omitted any mention of the republican strand of French liberal thought that runs from Rousseau to Durkheim and beyond.' p. 311 I dare say Foucault omitted it; but, as Paglia shows, there could be quite different reasons for this. Miller and Paglia both note that mention of Durkheim is lacking, but Miller, as it were, takes Foucault's non-mention of Durkheim at face value and Paglia doesn't. Skoojal (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this isn't that much of a mystery. It seems to me from these quotes -- and as I've said all along, I know precious little about Durkheim outside of the material you have presented here -- that all of these authors are saying that Foucault's approach to problems that Durkheim wrote about was quite the opposite of and even a subtle critique of the approach that Durkheim and others were a part of. In other words, Durkheim influenced Foucault in the way that the French Enlightenment influenced Foucault. Durkheim was basically the father of French sociology, as I understand it, isn't it a little bit like saying that Marshall Sahlins was influenced by Bronislaw Malinowski? In other words, it's generally true in some vague sense, but entirely unremarkable as the same could be said of any modern anthropologist? (Even more to the point, it's like saying Trinh Minh-ha was influenced by Malinowski). According to these quotes, Foucault was "influenced" by Durkheim only to the extent that he (and others, according to Dews at least) wrote against a general tradition and perspective in French thought that was represented by Durkheim (and others). But I would advise against attaching too much importance to the "non-mention of Durkheim" ... or, shall we begin to prepare statements and sections about all of the thinkers who Foucault does not mention? csloat (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Dews said that Durkheim was a primary influence on Foucault. The term primary is yours, not mine, despite your use of quotation marks. Skoojal (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - the word you used was "direct," and it was similarly inaccurate. csloat (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What I have been trying to say is that in that quote Dews moved from an ambiguous expression suggesting indirect influence to an ambiguous expression suggesting direct influence. Skoojal (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying you're wrong. The difference is, my claim is consistent with what Dews actually wrote, whereas yours has no basis whatsoever in the text. csloat (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no sense in replying to me in different threads. In future, please just reply to me in the thread below. Skoojal (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note on James Miller

The article contains this, 'Miller, James. The Passion of Michel Foucault (London: HarperCollins, 1993)—A number of scholars have expressed reservations in relation to some of the sensational claims made in this biography.' Which scholars are these, and which are the claims they have expressed reservations about? This has to be made clear for this to be of any use. Skoojal (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let us know what you find. csloat (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

On Durkheim again

I am going to put the reference to Durkheim back into the article, but with two differences this time.

Firstly, I am going to use sources. The first, and more important, of these two sources is Dews. His remarks do not say in so many words that Durkheim was either a direct or an indirect influence on Foucault; they point to some kind of influence, but leave its exact nature open. 'Behind the figure of Levi-Strauss' is an ambiguous expression that is compatible with either direct or indirect influence. The same is true of 'a number of distinctive features of Durkheim's programme can be seen to have left their stamp on the structuralist work of the sixties.' The last part of the quote from Dews, 'Traces of this constellation of attitudes appear in the work of figures such as Foucault, Althusser and Barthes during the 1960s, with a persistence suggesting deeper cultural roots than the work of Levi-Strauss', is likewise an ambiguous expression compatible with direct or indirect influence (although, in my opinion, it is a rather heavy hint that Durkheim was a direct influence).

Secondly, I am going to be careful about the way this is worded. That is, Durkheim's influence will be presented as the opinion of his critics. The wording I am going to use is, 'Critics of Foucault have identified Durkheim as a direct or indirect influence on his work.'

I hope that there is no further obstruction from csloat, but administrator intervention may unfortunately be required here. Someone might want to inform DGG of what is happening. Skoojal (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dews cite is not notable enough for a section on its own, and it does not confirm that Durkheim was a direct influence on Foucault, as proven extensively above. I don't see that this particular comment -- which neither of your two sources have bothered to connect to any actual specific comment in Foucault's work -- is important enough for this page. And please do not threaten me with "administrator intervention" -- it is you whose behavior on this page has been extremely problematic. csloat (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You write above, 'The Dews cite is not notable enough for a section on its own.' I have no idea what you mean. Could you please clarify this remark? As for Dews not showing that Durkheim was a direct influence on Foucault, I didn't cite him in the article as though he did, so that comment is beside the point. Saying that administrator intervention may be needed is not a threat; it's just me wearily pointing out the obvious. Skoojal (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that we're not goint to actually quote Dews in here. so we're agreed on that. But Dews cannot be used to evidence the claim that Durkheim was a direct influence on Foucault. We've established that very clearly. Your use of these cites in the article to prove something they do not is very problematic. Especially when you seem completely unable or unwilling to offer the evidence yourself. Once again, simply and easily, what specific claim of Durkheim influenced which specific claim of Foucault's? csloat (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I cited Dews and Paglia to show was that critics of Foucault detect an influence from Durkheim. That's not directly a claim about Foucault at all. Skoojal (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dews does not make that claim, as we have seen. And Paglia doesn't really either; she basically accuses foucault of stealing from Durkheim. Neither one establishes that Durkheim "directly" influenced Foucault, which is your claim. csloat (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Dews does not claim that Foucault's critics say that Durkheim influenced Foucault directly or indirectly is because Dews is the critic in question. Skoojal (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're talking in circles. Neither Paglia nor Dews establishes the claim you want to make. csloat (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim I want to make is simply that critics (which means more than one critic, not all critics) of Foucault have pointed to Durkheim as an influence, which they have. Skoojal (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You can possibly say that Paglia points to him as an influence but that is not notable. And Dews is not either, because he only points to influence in the same way that Aristotle or Plato is an influence. And to this date neither you, Dews, nor Paglia have come up with evidence of any argument of Foucault's that was influenced by any specific argument of Durkheim's. Stop belaboring this issue Skoojal - you've been pressed to come up with evidence for weeks now and you have been unable to do it. csloat (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

'Not notable.' That's the best you can manage as a response? Notability does not directly limit the content of articles, or such was my understanding. Skoojal (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As for Dews only pointing to Durkheim as an influence in the same sense that Aristotle or Plato might be an influence, no. That's preposterous. Dews did not adopt Paglia's aggressive and scornful tone, nor was he as explicit about it as her, but the point he made was very similar.Skoojal (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is actually nothing at all similar about what Dews is saying and what Paglia is saying other than that they both happen to mention Durkheim and Foucault within the same couple of pages. If you can't see that, there's really no use in continuing this conversation. Again, I find it difficult to believe you're even being serious. Paglia is charging Foucault with plagiarism. Dews is talking about Durkheim's overall influence in French sociology, and mentions Foucault in a list of other French thinkers in whom "traces" of a "constellation" that emanated from Durkheim through a third party (Levi-Strauss). You really believe that that's a "very similar" point to the claim that Foucault plagiarized Durkheim?? And have you noticed that in both cases you are unable or unwilling to identify which specific claim by Foucault was influenced by what specific claim of Durkheim ... If I found a quote from someone who said that there were echoes of Descartes' thought in thinkers such as Durkheim, Locke, and Hume, I don't think I would jump all over the Durkheim page like this; and if I felt it was that important I would at least pick up a book by Durkheim and try to identify or explain the Cartesian influence. csloat (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for detailed dissections of a writer's work, which is what you apparently expect from me. There would be few, if any, cases where this was needed to justify including something in an article. As for Dews, I repeat that the last part of that quote, 'Traces of this constellation of attitudes appear in the work of figures such as Foucault, Althusser and Barthes during the 1960s, with a persistence suggesting deeper cultural roots than the work of Levi-Strauss' is not compatible only with indirect influence, whether through Levi-Strauss or anyone else. It suggests direct influence without directly stating that there was a direct influence. Skoojal (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is "through Levi-Strauss or anyone else" it is, by definition, indirect. If it is shared with many theorists on both ends (i.e. Durkheim and others indirectly influenced Foucault and others), it is even less "direct." And if we can't even find it in the author's work in question, which appears to be the case for you here, it is very difficult to take seriously your claim that it is important enough to give prominence to in an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim, as I'll remind you, is that some of Foucault's critics have suggested that there is a direct or indirect influence from Durkheim, and once again, that isn't directly a claim about Foucault. Skoojal (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and we have one critic suggesting in a very accusatory way that it is direct, and another critic saying that it is not only indirect but barely worth commenting on (in that it is done so in a single sentence that mentions several theorists "such as" Foucault alongside each other). Do I really have to keep reexplaining this? See above. csloat (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dews does not say that the influence was indirect. Why not? Because the words, "Emile Durkheim indirectly influenced Michel Foucault" do not appear in his book, nor does anything like them. What does appear is some ambiguous language that is compatible with either direct or indirect influence. As for the "barely worth commenting on" part, that's your opinion; it's not in Dews. Skoojal (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does Dews say anything about direct influence? Please read burden of proof. Dews is actually quite clear in what he says and it is almost diametrically the opposite of your interpretation. I am starting to believe that you are trolling here, and I'd like to ask you formally to stop it. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made clear my view of Dews. He is implying that an influence from Durkheim was there, and that it may have been either direct or indirect. His language is rather carefully ambiguous. To accuse someone of 'trolling' because they disagree with you is not helpful. Skoojal (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

His language is not ambiguous in the least. Which word are you having trouble understanding? Anyway Girl2k is absolutely right here, there is no reason for either of us to get so bent out of shape about this. It has become quite clear that Durkheim does not belong on the list of influences. Cheers! csloat (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys need to examine the passion .... But may I intervene to ask what is meant by "influence" anyway? If it is to mean that a person's thought has been fundamentally shaped around another's, then Durkheim certainly does not fit here. Foucault in no way is a Durkheimian; in fact, as Rabinow and Dreyfus point out, he is an anti-Durkheimian. On the other hand, if "influence" is to mean that the influencer was read and made a difference (no matter what difference), well, then, the list would be miles long beginning with Plato. I vote with csloat. --Girl2k (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The content of articles is not based upon voting. Your claims above just represent your opinion; Dreyfus and Rabinow say that Foucault was different from Durkheim in one particular, but say nothing about the question of influence one way or the other. As for csloat not being able to recognise ambiguous language when he sees it, I can do nothing about that. Skoojal (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal please refactor your above remark - commenting ad hominem on an other editor is uncivil - Girl2k has come here as an outsider and in good faith please review your comment to her.

Csloat please reconsider some of your remarks from yesterday calling Skoojal a troll.

Skoojal I'm going to remind you and csloat again to both to act within WP:EQ here - civility is a requirement.

Also FYI Skoojal wikipedia works by consensus and as per the explanations at WP:TE "if your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said."--Cailil ^talk 12:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Cailil, I know that Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus. That was what I meant, actually, when I said that the content of articles is not based upon voting. I don't recall ever having voted on anything. If you would say what you think about this issue, that would be very helpful. Skoojal (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Influences

Recently there's been a debate here about whether or not Durkheim influenced Foucault, and also whether or not Durkheim should be listed as an influence on Foucault (which are related but distinct questions). I am starting a new section because Durkheim is not the only possible influence at stake and there are larger issues that need to be considered. My view is that it is not appropriate to list anyone as an influence on anyone else unless sources are provided for this influence and the nature of what the influence was, or may have been, is described properly. The influences section of this article is unfortunately lacking in sources; a few are given, but not enough. The solution would be to provide sources for everything, and to remove influences if sources cannot be found. Nothing (including Sartre) should be removed from the influences list unless this attempt is made. If it is OK to list numerous other people as influences on Foucault even without sources, then surely it is equally OK to list Sartre as an influence without a source. Skoojal (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Which influences are you disputing? We've settled the Durkheim issue above, yet you see fit to continue reverting. I think if we include Durkheim and Sartre the list of influences becomes astronomical, since we'd have to include all of the history of French philosophy (not to mention quite a bit of German, English, Scottish, Greek, Roman, etc.). In my opinion we should stick to direct influences where a clear pattern can be traced (e.g. some reliable source, preferably Foucault himself, gives some indication of which specific claim by the influential philosopher has influenced his work). This should not be hard to do for anyone who is actually an influence; but if you have to scour reliable sources for a one-sentence mention of indirect influence in a passage lumping Foucault along with others, then that's a good sign the influence probably isn't direct enough to include here. Since you are unwilling to recognize consensus without a vote, let's have one then. During the voting please leave Durkheim off of the main page. csloat (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen you can resolve this situation if you go through and cite appropriately: Foucault and His Interlocutors by Arnold I. Davidson; Tina Besley's Counseling youth: Foucault, Power, and the Ethics of Subjectivity; Michael Mahon's Foucault's Nietzschean Genealogy: Truth, Power, and the Subject ; the Cyclopedia of World Authors II: No. 2; and even that most obscure of books The Cambridge Companion to Foucault . Having a look at Durkheim and Foucault: Perspectives on Education and Punishment by Mark Cladis should illuminate matters also--Cailil ^talk 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, by describing Foucault as a reliable source, is simply taking Foucault's word for it about who influenced him and expecting everyone else to do likewise. I am not sure why someone would consider this reasonable. Again, saying that the issue has been "settled" is nothing but declaring that one is right; it's not a constructive response. I am not going to make a further issue out of Sartre, since it is becoming a distraction from the main issue. Skoojal (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

this is the article about Michel Foucault and the question at issue is whose work directly influenced Michel Foucault. You really want us to take seriously your suggestion that Michel Foucault is an inappropriate source for that information?? And how can any third party source come to that conclusion except with reference to that source of sources, you guessed it, Michel Foucault? Frankly, the question of Durkheim has been settled, since we've seen no evidence that he is a direct influence, and the only evidence we've seen seems to suggest the opposite. Can we please move on now? csloat (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The main question at issue is whether it is even permissible to mention that critics of Foucault think Durkheim might have influenced him. You removed mention of this fact, remember? Skoojal (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The main question at issue has nothing to do with what it is "even permissible to mention." The main question at issue is whether Durkheim should be listed on the list of direct influences on Foucault (alongside Nietzsche, Bataille, etc.) You have been adamantly edit warring to put Durkheim on that list in two different places, remember? csloat (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If Cailil could summarise what the books he refers to say about this issue, that would be of help. I provided quotes from the books I mentioned. If there is a reference to Foucault in Arnold I. Davidson's Foucault and His Interlocutors, then I missed it. Durkheim is not mentioned in the index. I do not consider a lack of reference to Durkheim as proof of anything. I certainly should look at the second edition of The Cambridge Companion to Foucault; the first edition, oddly enough, doesn't even mention Durkheim.Skoojal (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not odd at all. Why would it mention Durkheim if he is not an influence? csloat (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That Durkheim wasn't an influence on Foucault seems to be nothing more than your assertion. Skoojal (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my assertion is that we have no evidence that Durkheim was an influence. And we still don't. csloat (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I will remind those who insist on removing Durkheim from the list of influences that no sources are given in the article for most of the claims about who influenced Foucault. Yet, it is the suggestion that Durkheim may have influenced Foucault, based on two sources, that is found objectionable! This is curious, and I wonder how it can possibly be justified. Skoojal (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Two sources that do not say what you say they say, one of which is completely unreliable. Which of the actual influences would you like a source on? In many cases Foucault has written articles expressly discussing those influences' influence. csloat (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of your response consists of more of the same baseless assertions, to which I've replied enough times already. I want sources for everything, thank you, because that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If Foucault wrote articles discussing influences on his work, why not actually use them to source claims in the article? Once again, it seems extremely strange to object to my adding sourced content and at the same time to insist on retaining unsourced content.Skoojal (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which sources are missing, let us know please? If you know anything about Foucault, you can easily find which essay mentions which theorist. Here's a hint -- he discusses Nietzsche in "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" (the title is not coincidental, my friend). He mentions Bataille in "Preface to Transgression" (if you know much about Bataille, that title too is a dead giveaway). He discusses Kant in "What is Enlightenment?" (again, if you know Kant, you don't even need to read the essay to understand his influence there). He discusses Hypolite in "Discourse on Language" (the french title makes the Hyppolite connection clear). We can surely go on. Also I must ask you again not to attribute to me things I never said. I never insisted on retaining unsourced content nor did I remove sourced content. csloat (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of having a Wikipedia article about Michel Foucault is to help people who are not experts on Foucault (people who are experts on Foucault presumably don't need to look at it). Thus the article needs sources, so that people know where to look for these essays (and so that they know that the information in the article is based on real sources). As to your other comments, you insisted on retaining unsourced material when you restored the list of influences on Foucault, even though it was not supported with a single citation, and you removed sourced content when you deleted the reference to Durkheim, even though it was supported with two citations. Skoojal (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous -- removing one thing from the page does not mean I am insisting on anything about the rest of the page. And I just provided you sources above anyway; you should really drop this line of argument. And please stop claiming that Durkheim's influence is "supported with two citations" -- as I have shown again and again, one of the citations is useless, and the other simply does not say what you claim it says. csloat (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting this response to Skoojal from my talk page in case there is any lack of clarity regarding my above remarks: A number of those books don't refer to Durkeim but they do refer to other inflences. I agree with you that all the entries in the influence list need citations. Now while I'm away I can't give you a word for word account but the current[2] list of influenced can be sourced from the books I've listed.
Now, the books that do refer to Durkeim are interesting it might be worth while if you and Csloat can get a hold of Cladis's book. While personally I haven't read Dews's book, from everything I have read I would say that Durkeim is not an influence on Foucault. However there are significant areas of overlap in the subject matter their work - with that in mind Durkheim could be mentioned on the page somewhere--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PS noting who Foucault describes as influencing him would be appropriate also. One would just need to attribute it to Foucault by saying "Foucault described X's work/ideas etc as influencing him" and cite appropriately--Cailil ^talk 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Durkheim could certainly be mentioned on the page without being listed as an "influence." I agree the Cladis book looks like it would be good to help us out here (though I fear I have wasted far too much time on this trivial non-issue). csloat (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone might think that insisting on removing Durkheim from the list of influences suggests that you do not find the issue trivial. Why remove Durkheim if it does not matter? Skoojal (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone might think that by beating this dead horse that you are not taking this project seriously. And, as I noted below, the Annales school is already mentioned as an influence so we really don't have any more to argue about. Are you through? csloat (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Should Durkheim be cited as a direct influence on Foucault?

• No. Not enough evidence of direct influence; if we cite Durkheim we must cite thousands of others who have had at least as much influence as Foucault. Reliable sources, if anything, point to Durkheim as an anti-influence. csloat (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Also, Durkheim is already implicitly mentioned as an indirect influence in that the Annales School is listed. csloat (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By reliable sources, do you mean sources you agree with? Assuming that Paglia is right, they're just going along with Foucault. The only thing approaching a claim that Durkheim did not influence Foucault that has been produced so far is my quote from James Miller, and he is somewhat vague about it. Skoojal (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, burden of proof is your friend here; please stop asking us to find sources who mention that Durkheim is not an influence on Foucault. I also have no sources who say that Newt Gingrich is not an influence on Foucault; do you plan to add him to the list of influences too now? By reliable sources that support this claim, I mean sources that explicitly refer to which argument of Foucault was influenced by which argument of Durkheim. I also mean sources who are not as unreliable as we know Paglia to be. Anyway this section is for voting, let's keep the discussion above. csloat (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by, 'sources who are not as unreliable as we know Paglia to be.' I'm not part of that 'we.' Skoojal (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already addressed Paglia's unreliability many times in this discussion, and you have never even bothered to address the arguments against her; suffice to say she is not reliable here no matter what you claim to believe about her. csloat (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Skoojal (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume the assumption of good faith. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, realize that Paglia's comments on Foucault and other French thinkers such as Bataille, Derrida, Baudrillard and Lacan are extremely polemical in nature and not from an objective or at the very least a professional critical point of view. Durkheim was at the most an indirect influence on Foucault via Bataille and Blanchot. He did not directly mold Foucault's thought significantly and there are highly significant and vast differences between the two.

"giving it the title History of Systems of Thought"

To me, this information appears to be incorrect. As the biographical timetable in the "Dits et Ecrits" clearly states, the chair was defined before Foucault being chosen for it by the College de France itself. Naturally, its design, perspective and name are on the surface absolutely Foucauldian, since the chair, its objects and methods as described by the CdF were given shape by the intention of letting Foucault have it. One should change the phase into "holding the Chair of History of Systems of Thought". I'm citing my German edition of the Dits et Ecrits, attempting to translate appropriately [p.53]: "1969, November - November 30th, the professor's assembly of the College de France decides to alter Jean Hyppolite's Chair for History of Philosophical Thought into History of Systems of Thought. Traditionally, the name of the new professor is not being proclaimed during the election procedures. Commentator is Jules Vuillemin: 'The project that I imagine doesn't stand in the philosophical tradition of the Cartestian Theory of a substantial unity between thinking and space.' Concerning the history of notions, he explains: 'Regarding notions, we describe theoretical books as abstract as if their date of publication didn't have anything to do with their genesis of character.' He finishes by saying: 'If we want to eliminate Dualism and create a non-cartesian Epistemology, we have to do more; we have to eliminate the subject while keeping in mind the thoughts and try to construct history without reference to human nature.' On the same day, the creation of the chair for the sociology of civilization was resolved as well. Thos projects effectively aimed at Foucault and Raymond Aron. [...] 1970, April - April 12th, the professor's assembly of the College de France decides upon Foucault's appointment to the chair of History of Systems of Thought." [Dits et Ecrits, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2001, Band 1] Rihste (talk) 18th July 18:11