Foucault in the Panopticon
How Michel Foucault's encounters in Poland's heavily policed gay community informed his ideas

In 1958, the 32-year-old philosopher Michel Foucault arrived in Poland to assume the directorship of the Centre Français in Warsaw. Less than a year later, he abruptly left the country. According to a rumor that circulated for years, this rapid exit was precipitated by a sexual liaison with a young man who turned out to be on the payroll of the communist state's secret police. Amid the minor scandal that ensued, the French embassy requested Foucault's resignation and departure from Poland. His biographers have treated this Polish sojourn and the incident that brought it to an end as a footnote to his early career, covering it in a few pages.
In Foucault in Warsaw, first published in Polish in 2017 and now available in an English translation by Sean Gasper Bye, the philosopher Remigiusz Ryziński reconstructs this brief phase of Foucault's life on the basis of interviews, research in the copious files of the communist-era secret police, and speculation. The result is a hybrid work of literary reportage: part oral history, part archival detective story, part spy narrative, and part intellectual biography. The book is both the fragmentary story of Foucault's time in Warsaw and the story of Ryziński's effort to make sense of what really happened.
Ryziński elevates this narrative beyond mere biographical curiosity by using Foucault's experiences as a window into the secret history of gay life behind the Iron Curtain. Foucault had little to say about his time in Poland, so Ryziński's reconstruction relies heavily on the recollections of several men the French philosopher came into contact with while there. In the process of narrating their lives, he also makes the case that Foucault's thinking was shaped by his contact with these young men and the clandestine subculture they inhabited.
Foucault is perhaps best known for his account of the panopticon, a model prison first devised by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. The panopticon was a circular multi-level building in which cells were arranged around a central observation tower. Since the inhabitants of the cells never know when a guard might be observing them, they must assume they are always being watched and act accordingly. For Foucault, the panopticon illustrated the functioning of the "disciplinary apparatuses" characteristic of modern societies—a category in which he included not only prisons, asylums, and military barracks but also schools, factories, and hospitals. These institutions, he argued, condition their subjects' behavior not by monitoring them at all times but by leading them to internalize the gaze of authority.
Ryziński pored over the archives of Communist Poland's most notable surveillance apparatus—the secret police—for more than a year, searching for traces of Foucault's time in the country. Eventually, his investigations led him to files related to the man whose affair with Foucault occasioned the latter's expulsion from Poland. The man's name, he determined, was Jurek, and he was indeed a police informant—and not the only one operating amid the circles of gay men the philosopher encountered.
Homosexual acts were not strictly illegal in Communist Poland, but the state compiled extensive dossiers on those who engaged in them. Their motive was less moral disapproval than concern about their potentially subversive effects. Ryziński quotes a secret police document that states: "Like Freemasonry in former times, homosexuality remains an underground activity in all societies….Persecuted from the outside, homosexuals feel solidarity with one another (like every persecuted minority). The community of perversion connects people with adverse worldviews." The document adds that gays "recognize each other by signs, behaviors, and means of expression that are imperceptible to normal people." The perceived danger of homosexuality, it seems, resided not in the sexual act itself but in the consequences of its marginalization: tight in-group solidarity, the creation of an illegible argot, and so on. As Ryziński observes, "compiling a list of homosexuals could be the same as compiling a list of 'enemies of the nation.'"
Contrary to what one might assume, Foucault argued that panoptic surveillance does not necessarily seek to eliminate the transgressive behaviors it targets. This is because the perpetuation and expansion of power feeds upon the inevitable resistances it generates. Similarly, Ryziński suggests that the systematic police infiltration of Warsaw's gay male demimonde did not entail an effort to stamp out homosexuality. A subversive subculture could prove useful to the authorities' designs. They could, in the words of one document that Ryziński quotes, "be taken advantage of operationally." The apparent instrumentalization of a young informant in the expulsion of an ideologically problematic French academic provides one example of how this cultivation served power.
Ryziński argues that Foucault's experiences in Poland directly influenced the elaboration of this and other notable theories. When he arrived, Foucault had published only one book, Mental Illness and Psychology, which he would later disavow. During his year in Warsaw, he completed the major work that would set the course of his career as a mature thinker: History of Madness, which was first published in France two years after he left Poland. "Madness," Ryziński notes, "was a category of social exclusion in the same way as homosexuality." In this respect, he argues, "History of Madness was Foucault's attempt to understand himself."
According to Ryziński, Foucault's encounters with Poland's heavily policed gay community informed his scholarly examination of the treatment of the insane. "Madness and homosexuality are similar to one another," Ryziński writes, because as "long as there is no knowledge about them—medical, statistical, political—they do not exist. Or rather: they are left in peace." Conversely, as "the secret police agents gathered material on gay people, they were seeking a pathology that would give them the certainty that they had everything under control. In [History of Madness], Foucault described this same mechanism in relation to madness." Foucault's conception of "power/knowledge" proposes the latter two concepts are inextricable. Medical classification and social exclusion, he argued across several works, have long gone hand in hand.
In addition to this suggestive account of the genesis of Foucault's key ideas, Foucault in Warsaw offers new insights into the evolution of the philosopher's politics. Many on the right regard Foucault as one of a number of European leftists who led intellectuals astray in the wake of the 1960s. In reality, Foucault's political leanings were more complex. Years before he went to Warsaw, he had briefly been a member of the French Communist Party, but throughout his adulthood he was critical of "really existing socialism" and its Western defenders. In the early 1980s he petitioned on behalf of the independent Polish labor union Solidarity, and he returned to Poland after more than 20 years as part of a humanitarian aid mission. Ryziński's account suggests that his early run-in with a communist state helped infuse him with a skepticism of Marxism not shared by most of his French intellectual contemporaries.
For Ryziński, though, the hero of Foucault in Warsaw is less the philosopher than the otherwise unknown young Polish men Foucault met in the late '50s. In his research for the book, Ryziński managed to track down several of them. They had given little thought, it seems, to the young French academic who had once frequented their circles. Through decades of marginality, surveillance, and persecution, these men sustained communities and found love among each other. Their quiet perseverance, Ryziński implies, evokes an enigmatic phrase from Foucault's History of Madness that serves as the epigraph of his book: "the stubborn, bright sun of Polish liberty."
Foucault in Warsaw, by Remigiusz Ryziński, translated by Sean Gasper Bye, Open Letter, 220 pages, $15.95
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
According to a rumor that circulated for years, this rapid exit was precipitated by a sexual liaison with a young man who turned out to be on the payroll of the communist state's secret police.
Given that homosexuals were not treated as criminals but merely suspected subversives (if you're a member of a secret group, what sort of secrets might you be keeping from the state?) why would a rumor of homosexuality lead to a rapid exit? Unless the young man in question was a very young man, a boy in fact. But it's not like Foucault was .... oh, he was? Imagine that.
Just another weirdo.
If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.EFn Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…
Start today...........Earn-Opportunities
Yeah, a weird dance in the book review around the fact Foucault was a pederast.
I know society is moving quickly on the issue, but am I'm supposed to think boy-fucking is okay now, or is that still a year or two off?
Progressives are hoping that future pedos like Rosenbaum charged with pedo activities are able to get off.
"able to get off."
Poor word choice.
Progressives are hoping that future pedos like Rosenbaum quickly discharge any detained victims.
(⊙_⊙;)
What do you expect from an oral history?
In the end, it’ll get the shaft.
Foucault is one of the left's premier thought leaders.
Of course Reason shills for him and ignores his child molesting.
Through no foucault of their own?
Perhaps the rapid exit was to prevent a mess in the end.
SLOPPY PULLOUT!
HUMuNGEOUS INFLASHUN IN SNUFF!!!!!
Did I do that right?
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.AQz Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here.........VISIT HERE
"The perceived danger of homosexuality, it seems, resided not in the sexual act itself but in the consequences of its marginalization: tight in-group solidarity, the creation of an illegible argot, and so on."
Before gays started coming out of the closet, homosexuality also made people highly susceptible to blackmail. My understanding is that the KGB could easily blackmail American officials by setting up extramarital liaisons and threatening to send pictures of them to their wives. Last I heard, the FBI could still discipline agents for extramarital affairs, because it makes agents susceptible to blackmail. The FBI may ask prospective agents to disclose any past indiscretions to their wives before they join. The FBI, fairly recently, took out the head of the CIA (Petraeus) over an extramarital affair.
My understanding is that the KGB found subjecting French officials to the same threat of disclosing extramarital affairs to be generally ineffective--because mistresses in the public official strata of French society were the norm. The intended victim of blackmail might ask the Russians for some of the better photos to take home and show their wives themselves. If the KGB threatened to send the photos to a French newspaper, the intended blackmail victim might offer to pay the KGB to do so. That kind of notoriety could enhance their family profile, and their public career, rather than harm it.
I suspect all that went out the window when it came to homosexuality in Foucault's day. Even French homosexuals could be to pay a high price in social terms by being exposed as a homosexual, and if the Polish secret police weren't using that against western officials that interacted with Poland's gay community, I'd be surprised. Meanwhile Foucault's predilections weren't just gay. He was apparently big on sadomasochism. Giving the communists something like that to hold over your head, like that, would have been unthinkable during the Cold War.
I suppose now that communists want other types of leverage. The crime they can pin on most of us is not embracing (or at least endorsing) communism.
Well, the Steele dossier was another example of that kind of thing.
False allegations of being associated with the Kremlin launched an impeachment proceeding. They can get you just for being associated with them.
Soft peddled a bit, but still damning:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/greenwald-cynical-and-dangerous-weaponization-white-supremacist-label
Now it's "problematic tweets". Are you now, or have you ever tweeted about [____________]?"
"Even French homosexuals could be to pay a high price in social terms by being exposed as a homosexual,"
Really? Oscar Wilde set sail for France the very day he was released from prison. My impression was that France was much more tolerant.
It's important to note that neither Foucault's career or reputation seemed to suffer from the scandal in Poland. He was a sought after public figure and held positions at prestigious universities in France and around the world for the rest of his life.
England was an interesting case. Homosexuality was straight out illegal there, and for Chrissakes, the English invented homosexuality!
Naah; the Athenian Greeks did, but trueman is a pathetic piece of shit who ought to fuck off and die.
"Prone to self-harm, in 1948 Foucault allegedly attempted suicide; his father sent him to see the psychiatrist Jean Delay at the Sainte-Anne Hospital Center. Obsessed with the idea of self-mutilation and suicide, Foucault attempted the latter several times in ensuing years, praising suicide in later writings.[29] The ENS's doctor examined Foucault's state of mind, suggesting that his suicidal tendencies emerged from the distress surrounding his homosexuality, because same-sex sexual activity was socially taboo in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#University_studies:_1946%E2%80%931951
Foucault's suicide attempt(s) as a student over his homosexuality; Foucault's predilection for sadomasochism, and his struggle to reconcile this within French society at the time should be enough to explain the origins of his thoughts on mental illness, sexuality, society, violence, and power. I suspect that he might not have had such a hard time if he'd been raised in a more tolerant society, like we have today. Being cut off from the rest of society is both a symptom of mental illness (social isolation) and a cause of mental illness. Solitary confinement has negative psychological consequences. Surely, some homeless people become mentally ill because they're homeless--and shut off from regular society.
I'm sure there are people who try to smear homosexuality itself as a cause of Foucault's personal problems, and they may think his work is compromised by personal issues surrounding his orientation. I don't think it's necessary to defend his work or homosexuality by focusing on anything beyond the social stigmatization of his orientation and his kinks by French society. Hell, even his kinks may even have been partially a function of social stigmatization he experienced in French society and his observations regarding how power made these things happen. American Republicans are making the same observations about power and woke culture today.
Some people wonder how Thomas Jefferson could write so clearly about freedom while being, himself, a slaveholder. Jefferson even held his own children as slaves! However, it seems to me that staring the opposite of freedom in the face, every day, probably made the true nature of freedom painfully clear to him. How could someone who wasn't familiar with the total absence of freedom really understand what it meant within the context of what became American society? Likewise, if Foucault's understanding of power, mental illness, violence, and the state were made from the perspective of and on the basis of his own orientation and predilections, that may serve to enhance his work rather than dismiss it. Should it surprise anyone to hear that outsiders can see their society more objectively?
Did he see his society more objectively, or did he see it thought the subjectivity of his own personalities flaws?
If Foucault's work can't be dismissed on the basis of his personal baggage, that doesn't mean it can be defended on the basis of his personal baggage either--against anything other than the charge that his personal baggage disqualifies his observations.
Thomas Jefferson's work stands on its own merits regardless of whether he owned slaves. What Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence about the nature of liberty and the purpose of government is either true or false regardless of whether he owned slaves. We might say his views were informed by his experiences with slavery, but that doesn't defend them against anything but the charge that his slave owning means that his views on freedom are unworthy of our consideration.
Likewise, Foucault's work stands on its own merits--regardless of his personal experiences or attributes. Having personal experiences with the issues he writes about doesn't disqualify his views. Frederick Douglass' personal experience as a slave doesn't disqualify his abolitionism.
You see a lot of that today, where people with no understanding of gun violence, with no fear of being unarmed in a dangerous place (suburban housewives, etc.) are among the leading proponents of getting rid of police departments. People who live in the at-risk neighborhoods, well, they are not so much for "defund the police", no, not so much at all.
I see Conrad's Heart of Darkness (1899) as a response to exactly that. Wealthy abolitionist women were intent on stamping out slavery at its source, so they finance someone to go to Africa and destroy the slave trade at its source. What the well intentioned liberal finds on the ground in Africa is that stamping out the source of slavery requires atrocities so awful and widespread, that they rival the horrors of slavery itself (Heart of Darkness, of course, was adapted for the Vietnam War as Apocalypse Now.
In the end of the book, another man is sent to find what was happening to their mission in Africa, and what he finds is atrocities committed in the name of abolition. He has to go back to London and find a way to tell those well-meaning, upper middle class women that their good intentions are the cause of the horrors in Africa. The heart of darkness isn't a place in Africa. It's in upper middle class abolitionist women who imagine that their good intentions are the solution to problems they can't even begin to understand.
You could say the same thing about what originally drove the drug war in the 1980s. Suburban women demanded that the police go into those neighborhoods--like an invading army of liberation--to save those poor people from the ravages of drugs. 40 years later, that's out of fashion, so now they want to save those communities from the ravages of the police. Before we get suburban women to understand that letting people save themselves is the answer, we may need to persuade them that their good intentions are the problem--and that's a whole lot harder.
> Before we get suburban women to understand that letting people save themselves is the answer, we may need to persuade them that their good intentions are the problem--and that's a whole lot harder.
I never took you for a fabulist, Ken. 😉
Getting suburban housewives to be self aware?! Even more unlikely than Joe Bidet ushering in Libertopia.
"(suburban housewives, etc.)"
Just imagine where we'd all be if we didn't have traveling salesmen to keep all this suburban housewives in line.
You have to understand that trueman is a bullshit-spewing asshole of the first order:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Fuck off and die, asshole.
"ideologically problematic French academic"
Is there any other kind?
(And all these words but not one mention of Foucault as a "founder" of post-modernism and critical theory?)
Pedophile, founding postmodernist. Not a praiseworthy figure.
Fake intellectuals love studies on which there is no objective truth that way they can pretend themselves smart no matter what dumb and ignorant shit they say. That's why the left and journalists love post modernism. It lets them feel intelligent without hard work.
You think modernists are any better?
You think modernists means something dummy?
Evidently not to you.
Seeing as I was referring almost exclusively to the post modernist subjectivity the modernism term does not freely apply. Modernism can refer to both art and philosophy. While it sought to describe philosophy on the basis of reality it was not strictly objectivism. That was a parallel outcome but not explicitly linked into a theory called modernism.
But if your question is is subjectivity worse than objectivity, the answer is a resounding yes as it is repeatable and applies to everyone. It is not reliant on someone deciding what their truth is and forcing others to capitulate.
Read the final chapter of Joyce's Ulysses, Molly Bloom's stream of consciousness, considered the ultimate statement in modernism by those who've read it. It is not objective by any standards, nor was it intended to be. And the earliest mentions of post modernism come from architecture. Buildings which adopted a pastiche of styles in contrast to the austere modernism of the design of the UN building in New York, for example. It's got nothing to do with favoring subjectivity over objectivity.
Did you fucking read my comment? I addressed the fact that modernism is not explicitly objectivism. That's the primary issue i have. But post modernism is even worse.
Thats why your false dichotomy fallacy is so pernicious. It is not just those 2 theories of philosophy. Every philosophical a hook has issues. It is a bunch of faux intellectuals lying to each other to try to sound intelligent.
Post modernism is simply one of the worst schools.
How about Socrates or Spinoza? Surely you have good thoughts about Locke. Who are the philosophers that real intellectuals find worthy?
You have to understand that trueman is a bullshit-spewing asshole of the first order:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Fuck off and die, pile of lefty shit.
Yes.
"Yes."
Surprising answer. My thumbnail definition of modernism is the attempt to marry Marx and Freud - the Frankfort school is a noted example. Post modernists - like Foucault - rejected them both.
Well Jesse is essentially correct...
"Modernism is an encompassing label for a wide variety of cultural movements. Postmodernism is essentially a centralized movement that named itself, based on sociopolitical theory, although the term is now used in a wider sense to refer to activities from the 20th century onwards which exhibit awareness of and reinterpret the modern.[150][151][152]
Postmodern theory asserts that the attempt to canonise Modernism "after the fact" is doomed to undisambiguable contradictions.[153]
In a narrower sense, what was Modernist was not necessarily also postmodern. Those elements of Modernism which accentuated the benefits of rationality and socio-technological progress were only Modernist."
But yes, Marx and Freud at least tried to arrive at their positions using logic and critical thinking, even if erroneously. Foucault, Marcuse, Adorno and Derrida don't.
Lol. Thank you for that. I dont know why post modernists are allowed to define terms incorrectly. Part of their subjectivity.
"Foucault, Marcuse, Adorno and Derrida don't."
They may start with premises that don't sit well with you but I think they all use logic and thought critically. I liked this short video of Derrida on the use of the word 'animal,' seemingly ahead of his time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neu4kI_Yi0A
Critical and logical. What's not to like? Derrida also tells us there is no final reading or interpretation on any given text. There is always room for a new take or insight. A libertarian view, I think.
Starting with a lie that caters to personal self-interest, that you know to be a lie. They came up with a formula to deceive, and they explicitly rejected logic. Your assertion is garbage.
When a logical argument starts with assume, as most post modernism does, it is not logic.
Likewise they explicitly attack things that are immeasurable such as unconscious bias. A study so pernicious and flawed the original authors don't stand by it noting the experiments can not be replicated and just having a cup of coffee changes the outcome.
"When a logical argument starts with assume, as most post modernism does, it is not logic. "
Neither is science fiction, but it still has a lot to say to us. It's an extremely popular genre, even though despised by the callous elites of Manhattan literary salons. Why expect more of philosophy, which is, after all, just another literary pursuit, albeit one with a much longer and respectable pedigree.
Mosy Philosophy is fiction. You finally said something worthwhile.
"Philosophy is fiction"
What's wrong with that? The writings of philosophers like Nietzsche, Camus and Plato relied on elements of fiction. Spinoza's writing reads more like a mathematical treatise. Everyone has their own way to most comfortably express their ideas. You seem to have a very hidebound view of philosophy and what it should be. Better not to be so close minded and narrow.
"Starting with a lie that caters to personal self-interest, that you know to be a lie."
I'm not following. What lie is being started with that I know to be a lie? You're being very obtuse. Maybe you could find someone to help you to express yourself more clearly.
You have to understand that trueman is a bullshit-spewing asshole:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Fuck off and die, pile of lefty shit.
Yes. Youre an idiot.
Agree. But hard work won’t make them any smarter. Perhaps more wise. Or just educated in something without wisdom (such as a master’s degree in central planning implementation).
His ideological pretensions are one matter, his ethical failings another altogether. Yet, this is what many of the left-leaning and progressive 'intellectual' class embrace, a faux victim status granted to one of their faith's icons. I won't claim the right is guilt-free, but ye gods, academe and the left are rife with quasireligious fetishization of detestable twits like Foucault.
"the left are rife with quasireligious fetishization of detestable twits like Foucault."
Stephen Hawking is a better example. A lot of Leftists gave up on Foucault when he took up with the Iranian revolution.
trueman is a a bullshit spewing piece of shit who should fuck off and die.
Fortunately I have no idea who this guy was.
A founding father of woke and postmodernism.
"The theme that underlies all Foucault’s work is the relationship between power and knowledge, and how the former is used to control and define the latter. What authorities claim as ‘scientific knowledge’ are really just means of social control."
----Philosophy: 100 Thinkers (p 187)
http://e-library.sasuhieleekpoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/100ESSENTIAL-THINKERS.pdf
If that's an accurate appraisal of the consistent theme of Foucault's work, do you agree with it or disagree with it--and to what extent do you consider that theme "woke"?
Couldn't Trump himself have said the same thing at a rally?
The progressives and the woke often claim affinity for things they don't understand. Progressives often claim an affinity for Orwell, too, who would have hated them for their elitism. Republicans sound downright Marxist on foreign policy after they've listened to the neoconservatives. They often don't know what they're talking about.
The American left picks heroes like Foucault for the same reason they wear t-shirts with Che Guevara's face on them--because they think it irritates conservatives. Most of them couldn't describe the difference between communism and capitalism on a dare, and even fewer of them could accurately describe anything about Foucault's work, not even if their lives depended on getting it right.
Yet they follow his lead.
"The American left picks heroes like Foucault"
Foucault is no hero to Leftists of Anarchists, who put a lot of stock in the idea of a better world just over the horizon. Foucault's much too pessimistic for a role of hero. Feminists also find a lot of fault with Foucault. The American left picks its heroes from the world of sports. Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali, the kneeling footballers etc. Not French academics.
You have to understand that trueman is a bullshit-spewing asshole:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Fuck off and die, pile of lefty shit.
Michel Foucault was an enemy of knowledge. A self-absorbed, pedophile "potentate of pronouncement" dedicated to the elevation of his feelings and identity over critical thinking and logic.
For a libertarian magazine named "Reason" to write about him in positive terms is kind of cuckoo.
For a libertarian magazine named "Reason" to write about him in positive terms is kind of cuckoo.
This article is a book review.
I'm sure the guy who specifically mentioned this was a book review 25 minutes before you decided to try to play the pedant really appreciates you pointing that out. Especially seeing as how it so eloquently refuted absolutely nothing he said. Dumbfuck.
"This article is a book review" is a simple statement of fact, not an attempt at refutation. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "pedant."
[Gratuitous insult intentionally omitted.]
I used to get confused with Jacobin, a French revolutionary, and Jacobite, a Scottish follower of Bonny Prince Charlie.
But it's not simply a book review. It paints the subject in a positive light and fails to challenge the books assertions about a profoundly anti-libertarian thinker.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think the purpose of a book review is to assist a potential reader in deciding whether to read (or purchase) the book being reviewed.
Are you inclined to read or purchase the book after reading this review?
There's a difference between reviewing a book and endorsing a hagiography. This is the latter.
My question remains unanswered:
"Are you inclined to read or purchase the book after reading this review?"
That is a sophist argumentation. A review can have bias in it. Are you denying that?
Are you inclined to read or purchase the book after reading this review?
Repeating your question does not make it more intelligent.
Jesse is right. You're trying to play a game and set up your own goals.
The question is about whether or not this is a complementary book summary and free advertisement rather than a review. I think it is.
Whether or not I'd purchase the hagiography is irrelevant.
The "Reply" links have disappeared below, so I'm replying here.
As I mentioned before, I think the purpose of a book review is to assist a potential reader in deciding whether to read (or purchase) the book being reviewed.
If you have not read the book yourself, how do you know it is a "hagiography"? Are you basing that conclusion on the summary provided in the review?
If you (and others) are disinclined to read or purchase the book based on this review, it has been a rather poor "free advertisement."
One could argue that advocating radical sexual freedom is libertarian extremism.
Reason Nein libertarian long ago, of it ever was. It pays lip service to some libertarian sounding leftist policies every now and then. That’s all.
Someone on this site said that Emote cares only about corporate rights, and I can't say that they are wrong.
Celine was a Nazi, but Death on the Installment Plan made me laugh so hard--in translation--I could hardly believe it.
Gunther Grass was in the SS. He might have mentioned this before they gave him the big awards, rather than after, but is his work any worse than it was before this became known?
Wagner was an anti-Semite, but his music is amazing.
Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder. Is his definition of freedom or his argument for the legitimate purpose of government any less true because of that?
George Orwell was a socialist. Should we ignore his criticism of authoritarian communism?
I don't believe in cancel culture. It's an ad hominem fallacy at its heart.
If Jimmy Page had sex with underage groupies in Los Angeles, that says absolutely nothing about his composition and guitar skills.
When gay atheists argue that they should be treated the way we would want to be treated if we were them, they're echoing internalized values that came to our culture by way of Jesus of Nazareth--without even realizing it.
If you denounce the way progressives use power to inflict their phony woke values on society, you may be expounding positions that were originally formulated by Foucault--and ultimately came to you from him without you even realizing it. I'd hate to see your criticisms of the way the government inflicts its values on society undermined by association with something that doesn't really have anything to do with you or the argument you're making.
Do you know who else criticized power and its ability to corrupt society with its own phony values?! Don't you see what you're condoning?!
Actually, you aren't condoning anything. What Foucault wrote and what he argued was true or false regardless of what he did in North Africa.
“You see, son, here time becomes space.” Wagner, Parsifal, Act 1 (1882).
Ken, this article portrays Foucault as an ordinary homosexual. He wasn't, he was a pederast.
Your analogies about Page, Orwell and Jefferson's behavior being irrelevant to their art and ideas is inapplicable here because the book and this review focus on his homosexuality, while misrepresenting it.
If you read a book or a review on the relationship between Jefferson and Hemmings, that called her and her children "servants" and obfuscated the fact they were slaves, then that should be criticized.
If the book and the review had focused on Foucault's ideas and not his sexuality, then I would have taken your point.
I believe Noam Chomsky called Foucault the most amoral person he knew, or words to that effect. De Sade and Nietzsche are also big with the left and just as amoral,' to put it charitably.
"If the book and the review had focused on Foucault's ideas and not his sexuality"
The Polish secret police set a honey trap to discredit Foucault and embarrass France. You're still carrying water for them 30 years after communism fell.
Wait, what?
Since the dude was set up, it’s “carrying water” for commies to point out that he was a pedophile?
I guess he had no personal agency. Couldn’t resist the “honey trap” even though he must have known it was a bad idea.
Another prog rationalization from mtrue. Were you nodding in agreement when ESPN tried to rationalize Michael Vick killing dogs cuz they just couldn’t bring themselves to “judge” him, being as how he was black and from the south? It’s just part of their culture!
Haha. Idiot.
'it’s “carrying water” for commies to point out that he was a pedophile? "
Exactly. It's serving their purpose which was to bring his reputation into disrepute.
"I guess he had no personal agency."
Exactly. There's a reason why honey traps are such commonly used methods for secret police to use to ensnare people.
Fuck you're decietful. You don't get "trapped" into knowingly fucking minors.
You can get trapped into unknowingly fucking communist informers. It's called a honey trap, as I said. As for fucking minors, as I said, would you expect anything less from the man whom Chomsky called the most amoral man in the US (including California).
The Polish secret police set a honey trap to discredit Foucault and embarrass France.
Hold up, you're calling boys asses a "honey trap"? It's not like he was chasing big masculine bears, the man had a taste for kiddie-diddling.
Honey trap is a term of art from the spy world. Baiting with sex is the meaning.
You have to understand that trueman is nothing other than a bullshit-spewing asshole:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Fuck off and die, pile of lefty shit.
I think I addressed this elsewhere.
Because Thomas Jefferson's ideas about freedom were not completely separated from his experiences as a slave holder do not mean that his ideas about freedom are invalid.
Foucault's ideas, likewise, stand or fall on their own merits--regardless of what he did and regardless of whether it was related to intellectual work.
Really.
The author appears to be making the point that Foucault's work, in some respects, may have been a function of his experience in Poland. I'm not necessarily on board with that, but I'm not sure it's all about trying to distract from his . . . um . . . adventures in North Africa either. There is an argument to be made for leaving something out--especially if the thing happened after the work in question.
O.J. was a great running back before he went batshit insane. Gary Glitter was a rocker. Michael Vick was amazing before had that problem with up-dog. And thing with Foucault is, if we can keep his work in the official curriculum, we are really sticking it to the cancel culture people. Are you genuinely opposed to Foucault's thinking, or are you opposed because the left likes him--although they don't know why?
This is a postmodern libertarian site so it's understandable if they promote Fuckolt.
With domestic spying and bank transactions being reported, we all live in a panopticon. The thing Foucault didn’t foresee us how common it is for people to forget they are being surveilled and get caught by the state spying.
A related phenomenon, maybe only among older politicians who aren’t web savvy: they completely forget that all their speeches and statements are on the Internet forever, where they can easily be checked for self-contradiction, hypocrisy, and cancelation fodder.
Biden accidentally referred to the chancellor of Germany as a nigger in a speech a month after he got elected. During one of his few public appearances during his campaign he declared "I’ll lead an effective strategy to mobilize trunalimunumaprzure". In 2011 he said:
Turns out the internet isn't quite as forever for some as it is for others.
I was able to find references to both those incidents with a Google search. Looks like the Internet has not memory holed either.
Whoosh! (Again)
It's funny how conservatives claim all these stories are being kept from the public, when they're easily found with a simple search.
It’s funny how stupid lefties have points go sailing over their heads so often.
Censorship is only bad once total damnatio memoriae is achieved - t. sarcasmic
Just because information is being deliberately scrubbed and censored from the mainstream and polite conversation, as long as you can still find mention in some remote corner of the world, it's okay in sarc's books.
Sarc will burn those books to keep warm in the winter. Justified due to his propane money being spent instead on liquid fuel.
"Alt media exists, so Pravda is fine."
It's like you people deliberately failed history.
Deliberate ignorance is definitely part of their schtick.
Think about what you’re saying. Yes, if that had been the situation in the USSR, it actually would have been fine.
USSR had underground pamphlets and newspapers, therefore Stalin wasn't censoring people. -white Mike.
That's a perfect analogy of what he and sarcasmic have been pushing.
Do you not understand the different between pushing a narrative across a billion dollar industry and information being there by having to search?
Youre such a leftist shit these days.
Plus they somehow managed to hear about all these stories they claim are being silenced.
The actual dynamic is that any story the liberal-leaning media tries not to talk about immediately get discussed A LOT among conservatives, precisely because the liberals are not talking about them — that is, free speech is working exactly as it should.
Are you and the other leftists in complete denial of the bias in the mainstream media? That's the only reason for your assertions. Nobody is arguing no information exists, they are arguing it is ignored or pushed down by corporations and the media.
Holy fuck you two are stupid.
White Mike throws cawtion to the wind when tossing out those straw ornithopters.
I think they’ve been reduced to strictly playing the contrarian NPC.
Don't feed Mike.
I would be fine with that. Stop repeating boneheaded right-wing cliches that only fly inside your bubble, and I’ll stop pointing out how boneheaded the things you are saying are.
Caw caw!
What was right wing dummy? Over two thirds of the country distrusts the media.
Ken finally convinced me to mute those who qualify as "stupid" under Bonhoeffer's definition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc
Good decision.
Nobody died in concentration camps because I know someone that survived one
Russian Roulette is harmless! Ask those who can still answer!
By this logic..
You know what, no. I'm not even going to try with you.
Muted.
Awesome!
It’s not you Dee, it’s the 90% of the commentariat that ridicules you.
It's everyone elses fault. Not White Mike's. He's just telling power to truth or something.
statements are on the Internet forever, where they can easily be checked for self-contradiction, hypocrisy, and cancelation fodder.
Like Bernie Sanders decrying "open borders" as a "right wing" concept.
compiling a list of homosexuals could be the same as compiling a list of 'enemies of the nation
Compiling lists of parents that speak out against local school boards is the evolution.
Lists of legal gun owners. Lists of Republicans in the military. Lists of vaccine objectors. Lists of churches that conduct services with 100 parishioners while the Walmart a block away is allowed to operate at maximum capacity. Lists of 'insurrectionists' and 'terrorists' who can't fly on aeroplanes (remember when it was the venerable Mooslims who were being watchlisted and Reason spent a decade writing hundreds of navel gazing think pieces on the subject?) Nothing totalitarian pieces of shit love more than a list, and checkin' it twice.
Meanwhile WHO had to skip from Delta straight to Omnicron. Otherwise the Wuflu would become the Xiflu.
If China cut off its payments in a huff to WHO directors, how would they afford payments on their yachts and Ibiza beach houses?
Omicron is an anagram for Moronic. They're rubbing our faces in it. .
Nice.
I see I misspelled it. But Omnicron sounds cooler. Like an 80s robot terror flick. Stole that from Snowden.
Omnicron wanted to destroy Cybertron, home of the transformers. So this variant is clearly anti-LGBTQ+.
Ok. Had to duck duck go that but looks like you're correct. The trans formers were way ahead of their time.
More than meets the eye…
Indeed.
Post-Optimus Prime.
I think a good case for the start of the Panopticon in the US is the introduction of the zip code. Probably more than anything it enabled bureaucrats and marketers to measure and classify the population.
Because blue states and urban rural areas don't exist?
Urban rural areas do indeed exist. I remember my surprise at seeing city block size rice paddies growing green rice in the midst of Tokyo's urban sprawl.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Direct quote; not taken out of context.
Stupid asshole is stupid and smug. And should fuck off and die.
“It’s all speculation at this stage," Coatzee said. "It may be it’s highly transmissible, but so far the cases we are seeing are extremely mild. Maybe two weeks from now I will have a different opinion, but this is what we are seeing."
Coatzee is the doctor who essentially identified the new variant. Of course the liberal governments around the world will take any news to maintain their authoritarian control with such items as quarantine camps (not a big deal right sarcasmic) and increased spending and lock downs.
So it's kinda like that other coronavirus the common cold?
Or Covid in a person who isn't elderly, obese, and/or already sick with something else
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1465028734453493764?t=QlVM3PRGDP18Wm6urOSu8Q&s=19
Waukesha will hold a moment of silence today, marking one week since a car drove through a city Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring scores of others.
Death toll is up to eight. But Waukesha is no longer even coming into my Youtube-promoted feed. Say what you will about Waukesha, it was no Charlottesville.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1465060941461139463?t=SrdI_AYqi1JlE-SJygEz-g&s=19
The federal judge over the Ghislaine Maxwell case is Alison Nathan, an Obama appointee who worked as a special assistant and counsel in the Obama White House
I read this thinking is must have sth to do with pendulums--wrong Foucault! An (forgive me) analogous case was that of Friedrich Alfred Krupp, of the German weaponeer (ahem) dynasty. Male orgies were real controversial in Italy in 1902 and the steel tycoon's embroglio was mirthfully observed from England.
Hank, maybe your momma thinks you're clever; no one with a brain does.
Fuck off and die.
"Madness and homosexuality are similar to one another," Ryziński writes, because as "long as there is no knowledge about them—medical, statistical, political—they do not exist. Or rather: they are left in peace."
Sort of like a fully vaxxed Colin Powell, dying of Coronavirus.
Judt, in "Post War", has Sarte traveling to Buda-Pest long after the '56 uprising, delivering a peon to the communist paradise to be found there (as we would assume our commie shit commenter would do, so long as the praise did not require the asshole to actually live there). It seems no one threw tomatoes at him, but the applause was 'golfing level'.
Passing through Gongjing some years back, the guide assured us of the eternal friendship between Red China and the US, as the US had provided the Flying Tigers who had defeated the Japanese!
Several years later, the Buda-pest guide informed (accused, more properly) the largely US group that Eisenhower and Khrushchev had divided up the world and Hungary thereby suffered since the US did not come to the Hungarian's "rescue" in '56!
Further, I'm in possession of a monograph, written by a well-educated Japanese professional who clams the numerous deaths on the Corregidor 'death march' were simply a result of a lack of trucks to transport the POWs.
Misek assures us that Jews were not murdered by the Nazis, Duranty tells us that the 'show trials' were real.
There's more, but those who accept reality get the point: it takes individual research to find reality.