Desktop version

Home arrow Sociology arrow Orientalism Revisited: Art, Land and Voyage

Source

Notes

  • 1 Edward Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Penguin, 1995), p. 3.
  • 2 See further on this issue Robert J.C. Young, White Mythologies: Writing, History and the West (London: Routledge, 1991) or Zachary Lockman, Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  • 3 Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, A Metahistory of the Clash of Civilisations: Us and Them beyond Orientalism (London/New York: Hurst/Columbia University Press, 2011).
  • 4 Edward Said, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 241.
  • 5 Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, edited by Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana, translated by David Macey (London: Penguin, 2004), p. 29.
  • 6 Michel Foucault, ‘Truth and Power’, in idem, Power: Essential Works of Foucault, vol. 3, edited by James D. Faubion, translated by Rober Hurley et al. (London: Penguin, 2002), p. 131.
  • 7 In that sense, Orientalism is a ‘regime of truth’ rather than merely a ‘discourse’.
  • 8 Foucault, ‘Truth and Power’, pp. 132-133.
  • 9 Ibid., p. 133.
  • 10 See further Brent L. Pickett, ‘Foucault and the Politics of Resistance’, Polity, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Summer 1996), especially pp. 450 ff.
  • 11 For a persuasive depiction of Foucault as a ‘dialectician’ see John Grant, ‘Foucault and the logic of dialectics’, Contemporary Political Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2010), pp. 220-238.
  • 12 Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 354.
  • 13 Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 241.
  • 14 Sandra Bartky, ‘Foucault, Femininity and the Modernisation of Patriarchal Power’, in Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby (eds), Feminism and Foucault: Paths of Resistance (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), p. 79.
  • 15 Thomas McCarthy, ‘The Critique of Impure Reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School’, Political Theory, Vol. 18, No. 3 (August 1990), p. 443.
  • 16 Michael L. Fitzhugh and William H. Leckie, Jr, ‘Agency, Postmodernism and the Causes of Change’, History and Theory, Vol. 40, No.4 (December 2001), p. 60.
  • 17 Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 242.
  • 18 Gilles Deleuze, ‘Michel Foucault’s Main Concepts’, in idem, Two Regimes of Madness: Texts and Interviews 1975-1995, edited by David Lapoujade, translated by Ames Hodges and Mike Taormina (New York: Semiotext(e), 2007), p. 261.
  • 19 Ibid.
  • 20 Ibid., p. 262 emphasis in original.
  • 21 Ibid.
  • 22 Quoted in ibid., p. 264. Deleuze added the emphasis.
  • 23 Ibid., p. 262.
  • 24 Ibid., p. 265.
  • 25 Ibid., p. 264.
  • 26 For a similar article see Nathan Widder, ‘Foucault and Power Revisited’, European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 3, No. 4 (2004), pp. 411-432.
  • 27 Jeffrey T. Nealon, Foucault beyond Foucault: Power and Its Intensifications since 1984 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008), p. 108.
  • 28 Michel Foucault, The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, translated by Robert Hurley (London: Penguin, 1998), p. 93.
  • 29 See among others Anthony Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), pp. 24 ff.; Jurgen Habermas, The Philosophic Discourse of Modernity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), part 10; Michael Walzer, ‘The Politics of Michel Foucault’, in David Couzens Hoy (ed.), Foucault: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 51-68.
  • 30 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, in idem., Power: Essential works ofFoucault, vol. 3, edited by James D. Faubion, translated by Rober Hurley et. al. (London: Penguin, 2002), pp. 341-342.
  • 31 Deleuze, ‘Michel Foucault’s Main Concepts’, p. 260, emphasis in original.
  • 32 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 342.
  • 33 Kevin Jon Heller, ‘Subjectification and Resistance in Foucault’, Substance, Vol. 25, No. 1, Issue 79 (1996), pp. 78-110.
  • 34 Heller, ‘Subjectification and Resistance in Foucault’, p. 84.
  • 35 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Outside in the Teaching Machine (London: Routledge, 1993), 34-35.
  • 36 Foucault, ‘Truth and Power’, p. 120.
  • 37 Nealon, Foucault beyond Foucault, p. 104, emphasis in original.
  • 38 Mark G.E. Kelly, The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault (London: Routledge,
  • 2008), p. 108.
  • 39 Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, p. 29.
  • 40 Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 242.
  • 41 Barry Smart, Michel Foucault, revised edition (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 134.
  • 42 Foucault, ‘Revolutionary Action’, in idem., Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980), p. 230.
  • 43 See further Jonathan Arac, ‘Foucault and Central Europe: A polemical speculation’, boundary 2, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Autumn 1994), pp. 197-210.
  • 44 Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977-1978, edited by Michel Senellart, translated by Graham Burchell (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 201-202.
  • 45 Ibid., p. 202.
  • 46 Foucault, Power, p. 341.
  • 47 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, pp. 201-202.
  • 48 Paul Veyne, Foucault: His Thought, His Character, translated by Janet Lloyd (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), p. 126 and p. 128.
  • 49 James Miller, The Passion of Michel Foucault (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), p. 309.
  • 50 Quoted in Didier Eribon, Michel Foucault, translated by Betsy Wing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 282.
  • 51 Quoted in ibid., p. 287.
  • 52 Craig Keating, ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Iran: Foucault on Resistance’, Journal ofEuropean Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2 (1997), p. 194. For a comparable point see also Georg Stauth, ‘Revolution in Spiritless Times: An Essay on Michel Foucault’s Enquiries into the Iranian Revolution’, International Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1991), p. 259.
  • 53 See Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 136-137.
  • 54 Michel Foucault, ‘The Mythical Leader of the Iranian Revolt’, Corriere della sera, 26 November 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 220.
  • 55 Michel Foucault, ‘A Revolt With Bare Hands’, Corriere della sera, 5 November 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 213.
  • 56 Michel Foucault, ‘Response to Atoussa H.’, Le Nouvel Observateur, 13 November 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 210. See also ‘Dialogue between Michel Foucault and Baqir Parham’, Nameh-ye Kanun-e Nevisandegan (Publication of the Center of Iranian Writers), No. 1 (Spring 1979), pp. 9-17, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, pp. 183-189.
  • 57 Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, pp. 30-31. See also Ian Almond, The New Orientalists: Postmodern Representations of Islam from Foucault to Baudrillard (London: IB Tauris, 2007).
  • 58 ‘Dialogue between Michel Foucault and Baqir Parham’, 186. Foucault was very impressed with the writings of Ali Shariati, one of the pre-eminent intellectuals in 1970s Iran. Foucault was correct to point out the centrality of Shariati to the events in Iran, to see him as ‘a shadow that haunt(ed) all political and religious life’ and to observe that his ‘name was the only one that was called out, besides that of Khomeini’. Michel Foucault, ‘What Are the Iranians Dreaming [Revent] About’, Le Nouvel Observateur, 16-22 October 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, pp. 207-208. But the Shi’ism that Foucault thought particular to Iran was a hybrid construct, not an ahistorically coded ‘political spirituality’. This is particularly apparent in Shariati, where the ‘West’ is in the ‘East’, where the Shia myths and imagery were re-enacted within the frame of ‘Sartrean third worldism’ and a new form of Islamo-feminist militancy that positioned the daughter of the Prophet Mohammad next to Che Guevara, Abraham, Jesus and Frantz Fanon. On the hybridity of contemporary discourses of Islam see Adib-Moghaddam, A Metahistory of the Clash of Civilisations.
  • 59 Michiel Leezenberg, ‘Power and Political Spirituality: Michel Foucault and the Islamic Revolution in Iran’, Arcadia, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1998), p. 76.
  • 60 Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 196.
  • 61 These have been recently published in English. See Michel Foucault, Manet and the Object of Painting, translated by Matthew Barr (London: Tate, 2009).
  • 62 Michel Foucault, ‘The Army - When the Earth Quakes’, Corriere della sera, 28 September 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 190.
  • 63 Foucault, ‘A Revolt with Bare Hands’, p. 211.
  • 64 Michel Foucault, ‘The Challenge to the Opposition’, Corriere della sera, 7 November 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 213.
  • 65 Ibid., p. 218.
  • 66 Michel Foucault, ‘The Mythical Leader of the Iranian Revolt’, Corriere della sera, 26 November 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 221.

It is not so much that Foucault must be criticised for identifying a ‘perfectly unified collective will’ in the revolution, as Afary and Anderson suggest, or for emphasising Khomeini’s role as a point of fixation of the masses. Few scholars of the revolution would disagree that in the build-up to the mass demonstrations that brought down the shah, Khomeini was a unifying symbol for the protesters. See further Arshin Adib- Moghaddam Iran in World Politics: the Question of the Islamic Republic (London/ New York: Hurst/Columbia University Press, 2008), especially part 1.

  • 67 Foucault, ‘What Are the Iranians Dreaming [Revent] About’, p. 207.
  • 68 Foucault, ‘The Mythical Leader of the Iranian Revolt’, p. 221.
  • 69 Foucault, The Will to Knowledge, p. 96.
  • 70 It is striking that Foucault refers to Max Horkheimer, one of the standard bearers of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School in Germany, in his last writings on Iran. See Michel Foucault, ‘Is It Useless to Revolt?’, Le Monde, 11-12 May 1979, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 264.
  • 71 A reference to a Mullah ‘manufacturing the Iranian truth’ is emblematic for the scattered instances of critique that were slowly emerging, the closer the revolutionary ideals were turned into a new ‘regime of truth’. See Foucault ‘The Challenge to the Opposition’, p. 219.
  • 72 Foucault, ‘Response to Atoussa H.’, p. 210.
  • 73 Foucault, ‘The Mythical Leader of the Iranian Revolt’, p. 220.
  • 74 Michel Foucault, ‘A Powder Keg Called Islam’, Corriera della Serra, 13 February 1979, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 241.
  • 75 ‘Iran: The Spirit of a World without Spirit’ originally published in March 1979, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 256.
  • 76 Ibid., p. 260.
  • 77 Ibid., p. 255.
  • 78 Foucault, ‘Is it Useless to Revolt?’, pp. 263-264.
  • 79 Quoted in James Schmidt and Thomas E. Wartenberg, ‘Foucault’s Enlightenment: Critique, Revolution and the Fashioning of the Self’, in Michael Kelly (ed.), Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (Chicago: MIT Press, 1994), p. 296.
  • 80 ‘Iran: The Spirit of a World without Spirit’, p. 260.
  • 81 Foucault, ‘Is it Useless to Revolt?’, p. 265.
  • 82 Olivier Roy, ‘L’enigme du soulevement (Enigma of the Uprising)’, Vacarme, Issue 29 (Autumn 2004). English version available at http://www.vacarme.org/article1799. html [accessed 12 November 2010].
  • 83 Foucault, ‘Is it Useless to Revolt?’, p. 265.
  • 84 Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 129.
  • 85 Michel Foucault, ‘Tehran: Faith against the Shah’, Corriere della sera, 8 October 1978, in Afary and Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, p. 202.
  • 86 Ibid.
  • 87 Veyne, Foucault, 1, emphasis in original.
  • 88 More work has to be done on the confluence between the negative dialectics of Adorno and Horkheimer, Foucault’s power-resistance dialectic and Said’s concept of ‘contrapuntality’.
  • 89 Foucault, ‘Is it Useless to Revolt?’, p. 266.
  • 90 Ibid., p. 267.
  • 91 See further Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, pp. 7-10.
  • 92 See further Michel Foucault, ‘Michel Foucault and Zen: A Stay in a Zen Temple (1978)’, in Jeremy R. Carrette (ed.), Religion and Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), pp. 110-114.
  • 93 Said, Reflections on Exile, pp. 243-244.
 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >