I've read the first 30 pages so far, and the final chapter, nihilism.

I feel like it's a very interesting take on the whole post-truth idea, especially his analogies. How the discovery of the last isolated tribe essentially puts ethnologists out of work, and their attempts to conserve such a tribe by placing "a glass box" around them only destroys their work further. Same with museum artefacts e.g. mummies.

Or the idea that various scandals serve to prove the existence and the power of current order.

But I'm not sure I agree with his pessimism. I'm not sure if he even makes suggestions on what can be done, only that "shit is fucked dude". I feel like such an attitude is incredibly unhealthy, and can only serve the system. How can he write such an interesting book, and then end with, "and so, you should lie down and just take it".

I'm not sure if I'm being too uncharitable with my interpretations, however.

Anyone have opinions on this ?

  • shitshow [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Have you fucked with Foucault (or more accurately, scholars that are willing to condense Foucault for you)? His later stuff is very post-modern, but doesn't come off as nihilist to me. He opines that the oppressed are the leaders of history in the sense that the oppressors goal is always to find new ways to control them. Its like a Mobius strip, where one is always in conversation with the other.

    There's a comic I had to read called "Foucault for Beginnings" that goes into how he developed his theories over time. Dude was into homosexual BDSM and Communism, he's based.