I've decided to try to improve the intellectualness of my brain. I know, I know, my IQ (self-assessed) is so high already that this would seem to be a pointless endeavour. But I'm a humble genius and live by the adage "it is possible, though very unlikely, that there are things in this world of which I do not have knowledge" (and quite a catchy adage I think, maybe one day someone will turn it into a rap song). So I've been attempting to read some books by French intellectual Michel Foucault (who decides that a person is an intellectual anyway? is there a vote?). I have 3 of his books on loan from the library - which I've listed in order of "started to read and then abandoned":
1) The Will To Knowledge: The history of sexuality, Vol. 1
2) Discipline And Punishment: The birth of the prison
3) The Archaeology Of Knowledge
Sex, discipline and knowledge – bring it on! Or not. Here are 3 seemingly interesting topics, surely riveting discussion would transpire. Alas, no. Or maybe it did, just not in any language I can understand (note: the books have been translated into English before anyone says: “they’re written in French, idiot. Merde.”).
Perhaps I’m being disrespectful. Academics may say: “you’re just an uneducated pleb, Nicole, you shouldn’t be reading such literature. These books were not written for you”. Then who the fuck were these books written for ??? Sorry – Then for whom the fuck were these books written??? The blurb on the back cover of The Archaeology Of Knowledge informs that “…Foucault was a man whose passion and reason were at the service of nearly every progressive cause of his time…he spearheaded public awareness of the dynamics that hold us all in thrall to a few powerful ideologies and interests.” How on earth did he spearhead public awareness if nobody could understand anything he’d written? What are these powerful ideologies and interests to which we are held in thrall? If it’s not explained to me in language I can follow (and let me remind the internet that I have read The Brothers Karamazov – I can handle the incomprehensible, up to a point, ie just before my brain explodes), then how will I be able to spot an evil ideology when I meet one? Maybe I should just trust intellectuals and leave progress in their incomprehensible hands? Perhaps important ideas shouldn’t be “dumbed down” for the stinky masses? Maybe we should let the intellectuals sort it out and then explain it to us in simpler terms? And why does the word ‘elitist’ keep fluttering through my brain?
I want to be able to think it out for myself. And intellectuals writing in incomprehensible jargon and monopolizing ideas makes this difficult. And makes me cranky. I should be able to go to an original paper, read it for myself and make my own conclusions. Even if that paper is written in French (for which I do not speak). (Although I think it’s perfectly acceptable to read the translated version).
But let me get back to the concept of “dumbing down”. Is there a fear in Academic Land that if a piece of writing is coherent it isn't worthy? Is it necessary to over-intellectualize to the point of inanity to ensure that "common" people can't understand it. I think a comprehensive intellectual piece of writing will require, on the part of the reader, a degree of concentration, occasional consultation with a dictionary, sobriety and rumination. But these things don’t render it unreadable. I found Michel Foucault to be (mostly) unreadable. And annoying. Here are some thoughts that meandered though my mind whilst I was attempting to read his writings:
- this is overly abstract
- this doesn’t make sense
- this is very obscure
- get your claws out of my leg, Willow
- I disagree with this generalization
- are you going to back up this generalization with some evidence?
- Willow is so cute when she sleeping – she’s gone all twitchy
- I strongly disagree with this generalization even though I don’t understand it
- this sentence is too long...
- ...and poorly worded...
- ...and contains too many ideas...
- ...and conveys no meaning
- I wish season 2 of True Blood was already available on DVD
- oh my god! I can’t remember the last 20 minutes
- this cryptic generalization is very sweeping
- this paragraph is imbued with a specific vagueness
- how long has it been since my last cup of tea?
- has this been written in some kind of code?
- get to the point already! Jesus…
- ..Mary and Joseph
- I think Alexander Skarsgård would be impressed that I’m reading Foucault and, because of this, become completely besotted with me, and, as a consequence, would find it necessary to get wild with me…
- …[this thought requires an “adult content” warning]
- dammit, I’m going to make another cup of tea even though I haven’t finished my current one
9 comments:
a brilliant post dear effulgent .. enjoyed on many levels .. i wonder if translations may add to the problem of inaccessibility? especially if the translator is not in contact with the original author??
I agree that "things" (meaning, author's intent, nuance) can be distorted, even changed, after being translated, and possibly made less coherent. Translation is an artform in itself. 2 of the books were translated by the same person, but all 3 are mega-incomprehensible. And I think for 3 books by the same author to be so comprehensibly incomprehensible (try saying that 10 times, quickly), it isn't just a matter of inadequate translation.
I think I meant to type "comprehensiVly incomprehensible" - I was a little distracted earlier on trying to come to terms with the devastating news that Alexander Skarsgard is on with Kate Bosworth. NO!!! If he has to date someone (other than me) I would prefer it be a 40-something brunette. He has my permission to date Mary-Louise Parker.
Found your post after googling "Michel Foucault is completely unreadable". It is nice to know I am not alone. I am reading this for a class and will be relying heavily on the wiki summary and suppressing every urge I have to let my true feelings out in class.
CDC72,
You're definitely not alone! - the statistics for this blog often show people coming to this blog entry after googling similar words :-).
Yup. Tried four times over the past month to read History of Madness. This was motivated by the fact the Ian Hacking, an intellectual hero of mine, is a Foucault fan.
Can't be bothered to waste any more time on Foucault. I come to this conclusion even though I have got quite a lot from reading other tough stuff. And, I am bilingual in French and English. He is no better in French.
While I am thrilled you were able to read and comprehend The Brothers Karakazov, it is worrisome you cite 19th century romantic literature (however laden with abstract philosophical, psychological, etc. ideas it may be) as some sort of proxy for being able to digest 20th century post-modern social theory. Indeed you are not the first to find Foucault difficult, but you seem to run away from what you struggle with. Foucault, Nietzsche, Hegel, Hume- these are just a few geniuses working on intellectual projects that extended beyond the brevity you require to rush through to pass or fail. You say you wish to draw conclusions, but it is exactly the conclusions made in the past that Foucault investigates. Conclusions are the antithesis of Foucault's project. If you are truly interested in understanding Foucault you would do well to take your time and work through his ideas, however difficult, with the intention of reflecting on their thought rather than dismissing them outright for your lack of comprehension. It is highly unlikely that the recognition Foucault has received is due to people pretending to understand what they consider to be incoherence just to save face.
Karamazov*
You realise that what you are reading is a translation of Foucault right?? I believe the only translation available in English of 'Surveiller et Punir' is by Alan Sheridan (title: discipline and punish). I've been analysing Sheridan's translation of this text and it's actually pretty appalling. In some cases he makes basic errors. The original text is much easier to read and much more eloquent, Sheridan is responsible for the unreadable translation.
Post a Comment