|
French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States | 
| Author: Francois Cusset Creator: Jeff Fort Publisher: Univ Of Minnesota Press Category: Book
List Price: $24.95 Buy New: $15.49 You Save: $9.46 (38%)
New (19) Used (1) from $15.49
Avg. Customer Rating: 2 reviews Sales Rank: 62735
Media: Paperback Number Of Items: 1 Pages: 408 Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.3 Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 6 x 1.1
ISBN: 081664733X Dewey Decimal Number: 194 EAN: 9780816647330 ASIN: 081664733X
Publication Date: April 1, 2008 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Shipping: International shipping available Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
“A great story, full of twists and turns. . . . Careers made and ruined, departments torn apart, writing programs turned into sensitivity seminars, political witch hunts, public opprobrium, ignorant media attacks, the whole ball of wax. Read it and laugh or read it and weep. I can hardly wait for the movie.” aStanley Fish, Think Again, New York Times “In such a difficult genre, full of traps and obstacles, French Theory is a success and a remarkable book in every respect: it is fair, balanced, and informed. I am sure this book will become the reference on both sides of the Atlantic.” aJacques Derrida “The Atlantic Ocean has two sides, and so does French Theory. Reinvented in America and betrayed in its own country, it has become the most radical intellectual movement in the West with global reach, rewriting Marx in light of late capitalism. Breathtakingly moving back and forth between the two cultures, Francois Cusset takes us through a dazzling intellectual adventure that illuminates the past thirty years, and many more decades to come.” aSylvere Lotringer During the last three decades of the twentieth century, a disparate group of radical French thinkers achieved an improbable level of influence and fame in the United States. Compared by at least one journalist to the British rock an’ roll invasion, the arrival of works by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-FranAois Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, and FAlix Guattari on American shores in the late 1970s and 1980s caused a sensation. Outside the academy, “French theory” had a profound impact on the era’s emerging identity politics while also becoming, in the 1980s, the target of right-wing propagandists. At the same time in academic departments across the country, their poststructuralist form of radical suspicion transformed disciplines from literature to anthropology to architecture. By the 1990s, French theory was woven deeply into America’s cultural and intellectual fabric. French Theory is the first comprehensive account of the American fortunes of these unlikely philosophical celebrities. FranAois Cusset looks at why America proved to be such fertile ground for French theory, how such demanding writings could become so widely influential, and the peculiarly American readings of these works. Reveling in the gossipy history, Cusset also provides a lively exploration of the many provocative critical practices inspired by French theory. Ultimately, he dares to shine a bright light on the exultation of these thinkers to assess the relevance of critical theory to social and political activism today-showing, finally, how French theory has become inextricably bound with American life. FranAois Cusset, a writer and intellectual historian, teaches contemporary French thought in Paris at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques and at Columbia University’s Reid Hall. His books include Queer Critics and La DAcennie. Jeff Fort is assistant professor of French at the University of California, Davis. He has translated works by Maurice Blanchot, Jean Genet, and Jean-Luc Nancy.
|
| Customer Reviews:
For academics only... July 18, 2008 I bought this for my mother based on the review, figuring if she didn't like it, I would. She is a highly educated person, but wasn't familiar with the topic, and I thought it would introduce her to some of the theory that I use, etc. and give her some kind of entry into my academic world.
No dice - she found that you have to already be familiar with the topic to get anything out of this. After reading it, I agree. I found it wholly fascinating, but can understand why someone else who is not in this environment would be lost. The writer makes many assumptions regarding the reader - it's NOT an introduction by any stretch of the imagination.
That being said, it's a good book.
A transformation of U.S. intellectual life or merely a surface reading? May 28, 2008 9 out of 24 found this review helpful
If someone was not aware of the controversy surrounding the works of philosophers and literary critics going by the names of Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze, Slavoj Zizek, Michel Foucault, and Alain Badiou and decided to read samples of their work, it might be interesting to see if such a reader would find them as "radical" as they are sometimes portrayed in both the academic and popular press. Such a neutral and isolated reader who is not embedded in the community of experts might extract an interpretation of these works that would be very different from the usual ones currently expounded. Being free from the hype and controversy might allow such an individual to give a fresh interpretation or new paradigm, and one that might in fact have didactic utility. In addition, it would be very interesting to see the reaction of these philosophers and their followers to this interpretation/paradigm. Would they object to it with the assertion of the impossibility of "neutrality"? Or would they view as normal, as being yet another example of the tensions and "oppositions" that are embedded in every text? If one believes in the wide scale proliferation of the works of these philosophers, as the author of this book clearly does, it might be difficult to find such a reader. The author portrays "French theory" as a body of works, ideas, or texts that have seeped into every facet of American culture, both academic and non-academic. His evidence for this however is very meager and in fact purely anecdotal. This perhaps should not be surprising, for a sound statistical study of the influence of "French theory" would not be forthcoming from someone who stands in opposition to things scientific. But it is a supreme irony that those in the scientific community, particularly those who cheered after the successful culmination of the "Sokal hoax", also do not study the impact of "French theory" from a rational, scientific perspective. Instead, very cursory summaries of "French theory" are given, coupled with selected quotations that they feel support their case of its degrading and anti-scientific bias. In spite of the author's refusal or inability to present a case for the widespread influence of "French theory" he does introduce the reader to some of the works of the French literary theorists along with short histories and biographies of these theorists and a few of their followers. Anyone who was in the academy during the 1980's and 1990's no doubt has vivid memories of the controversies going on at the time with "politically correct" thinking, the Sokal hoax, and the book by Alan Bloom widely discussed and debated. Many viewed "French theory" as an epistemological black plague that must be stamped out without mercy in order to protect "naive" impressionable students and the scientific enterprise. Others viewed it as an invitation to revel in a kind of literary Dionysian ecstasy, to become "intoxicated at the prospect of never hitting bottom" to quote the Derridean translator Gayatri Spivak. Others, dubbed the "neoconservatives" by the author and by the academic guru Stanley Fish, felt that it was proof of the decadence of liberalism and the American "Left." But here lies another irony with all these groups: they all seem to take on the attributes of the very thing that deconstructionists describe: they all seem to inhabit their own "logospheres" with each one completely convinced of its apodictic certainty, of possessing the legitimate metanarrative, and having as its purpose the total subjugation of the other "logospheres" to its hegemony. The author rightfully takes issue with the degree to which American academics and their students have understood "French theory". Few it would seem have taken on the enormous time commitment involved to master its intricacies and historical context. In the introductory pages he makes clear just what he means by "French theory" and in the early chapters one gets the definite impression that the literature departments in the United States were "ripe" for an inculcation of "French theory." But regardless of the intellectual content of "French theory" it is perhaps a compliment that American culture is receptive to new ideas, no matter how alien they may appear at first glance. If American society went overboard with "French theory" it was because of its possibilities of being a guide to making sense out of things, as a tool that competed with structuralism. The deconstructionists however did not mean this to happen, argues the author, and any set of procedures to that end would be their anathema. Popular culture even got in on this distortion, the author quoting the case of the Hollywood movie "The Matrix" and its incorrect exploitation of Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacre et Simulations." But one could also argue that even a "misunderstanding" of "French theory" could be taken as proof of its influence. After all, it would not be the first time that "surface readings" have resulted in substantial philosophical, literary, or political movements. And the Sokal hoax could be interpreted as an example of what some cognitive scientists call conceptual blending, as an expansion (deliberate or not) of a text to make it say something that is similar to another text. The concepts of quantum gravity do not bear much resemblance to those in hermeneutics, but they can easily be made to resemble them by this blending of concepts. Such a blend may be a farce to some, and from a scientific perspective it certainly is, but for a "neutral" reader it might actually be entertaining or poetic to a certain degree. In this respect Sokal may have done more harm than good for the scientific community, in that he showed how easy it is to "corrupt" a text, even a scientific one, and make it express concepts that are very similar to another one, no matter how "irrational" the latter is. He thus may have inadvertently presented an example of the flexibility of scientific discourse, which in the traditional view is "tighter" in its interpretation and demands a high degree of mental discipline for its understanding.
The author ends the book with an exaltation of French theory in its ability to "decipher" the "operations of power" and its "theoretical grasp of the world." This can only be done he says by extracting it from the academy and the hands of professional commentators. Oddly enough, he refers to the risk of taking it on, and expresses hope that it will "restore life to life." Taking a swipe at the capitalist marketplace and all of its (supposed) vicissitudes, French theory will according to the author spare us of the capitalist logic and consequent cynicisms. In asserting this he is definitely of reactionary status, and has his work cut out for him if he is to stymie or disrupt the flow of technical and scientific advance taking place at the present time. At least for this reviewer, it is difficult to see how the rhetorical constructions of Derrida & Co. could significantly halt this advance, and it really should not attempt to.
|
|
| Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |