Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a Foucault…

“Where does a postmodernist go to protest? What do you militate for, and how, if, say, “democracy” or “class’ is an “essentialist” concept that betrays the indeterminate and contested character of political relations? Or, where does a Foucauldian go to protest, if power is everywhere — in himself included? Foucault says, the individual is a power factor. So in this age of theory, what can a person do by way of political action but just sort of mumble to himself?…

…When Foucault writes about discipline and capillary power in early modern Western history, anthropologists pick it up and use it to think the institutions of every and any society. In the event, this poststructuralism becomes a paranoid style neofunctionalism: everything-family, kinship, second-person Vietnamese pronouns, Brazilian workers’ housing, Korean shamanism-is reduced to a power function. For myself, I think that anthropologists who have had the experience of cultural-ontological differences should not give a Foucault.” – Marshall Sahlins

Taussig on Theory

“Barthes was a restless thinker. No sooner had he gotten things squared away with his semiotic theory than he found exceptions to the theory because the very act of squaring things self-destructs. What is called “theory” gives you insight. But it does so at the expense of closing off things as well. Theory can never do justice to the contingent, the concrete, or the particular. Yet if you don’t exercise that theory muscle to the extent that you realise its limits, then you won’t get that cherished Zenlike moment of the mastery of nonmastery”

- Michael Taussig