{"id":165,"date":"2009-06-25T17:16:28","date_gmt":"2009-06-25T17:16:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp\/?p=165"},"modified":"2009-06-25T17:16:28","modified_gmt":"2009-06-25T17:16:28","slug":"blogger_book_club_ii_something","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/2009\/06\/blogger_book_club_ii_something\/","title":{"rendered":"Blogger Book Club II: Something I Liked"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By Matthew Guerrieri<\/p>\n<p>This week&#8217;s discussion of Hickey&#8217;s book around these parts has been by<br \/>\nand large skeptical-critical, which kind of gives the impression that<br \/>\nthe book was a chore. But (for me, at least) I had a good time<br \/>\ndisagreeing with it&#8211;I read the book a second time and had <i>more<\/i><br \/>\nfun disagreeing with it. So, just to say thank you for by far the<br \/>\nhighest-quality procrastination of the week, here&#8217;s something I liked<br \/>\nabout the book: Hickey&#8217;s defense of French<br \/>\nStructuralism.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Somehow, the delicate instrumentalities of<br \/>\ncontinental thought had been transmuted by the American professoriat<br \/>\ninto a highfalutin, pseudo-progressive billy club with which to beat<br \/>\ndissenters about the head and shoulders.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230; Foucault&#8217;s<br \/>\nruthless, timely dismantling of the human sciences had simply<br \/>\nvanished. It had, in fact, been surgically amputated and a dumbed-down<br \/>\ntravesty of Frankfurt School sociology sewn onto its place. Barthes&#8217;s<br \/>\ndead author walked the steppes as an avatar of ethnic and sexual<br \/>\nidentity, replete with neediness and aura. Foucault&#8217;s Panopticon and<br \/>\nLacan&#8217;s gaze were untidily bundled into one lumpy paranoid concept&#8230;.<br \/>\n(p. xix)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Though I would say that the caricature of<br \/>\nContinental thought came as much from outside as inside (my alma<br \/>\nmater&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/John_Silber\">former<br \/>\npresident<\/a>, after all, was known for spitting about the Frankfurt<br \/>\nSchool like John Lithgow in <i>Footloose<\/i>), the reminder that the<br \/>\noriginal thinkers were more elegant, subtle, and even playful than you<br \/>\nmight get from their reputation is always welcome. I never dip back<br \/>\ninto them without feeling refreshed (even Foucault, who can be pretty<br \/>\nheavy going in translation). So even though I didn&#8217;t quite buy<br \/>\nHickey&#8217;s application of the Bentham-Chardin divide from Foucault&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.libertysecurity.org\/article203.html%27\"><i>Discipline<br \/>\nand Punish<\/i><\/a> (pp. 5-8), it was still my favorite part of the<br \/>\nbook, and put a lot of the rest of his criticism of institutions in a<br \/>\nmore complex and useful context. In some ways, disagreeing with<br \/>\nsomeone who&#8217;s read Barthes <i>et al.<\/i> can be more invigorating that<br \/>\nagreeing with someone who hasn&#8217;t.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Matthew Guerrieri This week&#8217;s discussion of Hickey&#8217;s book around these parts has been by and large skeptical-critical, which kind of gives the impression that the book was a chore. But (for me, at least) I had a good time disagreeing with it&#8211;I read the book a second time and had more fun disagreeing with [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-165","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-bookclubii","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/gap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}