What do you think?
Rate this book
Marx'tan Sonra
‘‘Trombadori, İtalyan Komünist Partisi’nin günlük gazetesi olan L’Unità için çalışıyordu. Foucault’nun komünist partilerden, özellikle Fransız Komünist Partisi’nden hazzetmediği bilinir; onu partili komünist bir entelektüelle ciddi bir tartışma yaparken görmek, alışılmış bir durum değildir. Buradaki mülakatlarda, ikisinde de zaman zaman kimi kuşkular belirse de, tartışmanın havası karşılıklı saygıya dayalıdır. Öteden beri birçok yazar, Foucault’nun Marksizm’le ilişkisini incelemeye yeltenmiştir; bu söyleşiler, bu konudaki çabalara ışık tutuyor. Burada, iki karşıt duruşun güçlü ve zayıf yanlarını apaçık görebiliriz: Bir tarafın, yerel taktikler kadar küresel stratejiler de üreten siyasal kitle örgütü aracılığıyla devrimci bir programı öne çıkarma arzusuna karşılık olarak diğer taraf, iktidar ilişkilerinin önceki analizlerine ve onların gerektirdiği stratejilere dair radikal bir kuşkuculuğu sürdürme arzusuyla karşılık verir. Aslında Foucault’nun meydan okuduğu şey, siyasal temsil kavramının ta kendisidir. Entelektüelin rolü ile ilgili olarak, burada ve başka yerlerde –örneğin, Deleuze ile yaptığı ünlü söyleşide– dile getirdiği düşünceler, üzerinde durulmayı hak ediyor; bu kitapta yer alan diyaloglardaki tıkanıklık, solun 1980’lerin sonunda Batı’da yüz yüze kaldığı, 80’li yılların son aylarında Doğu Avrupa’da komünizmin genel olarak çöküşüyle nihayet farkına varılan siyasal tıkanıklığın belirtisi gibi gözüküyor.’’
– R.J. Goldstein
1984’teki ölümünden üç yıl önce gerçekleştirilen bu söyleşi dizisi, Foucault’nun büyük tartışmalara yol açan düşüncelerine dair doğrudan bir kaynak. Düşüncelerini sormakla kalmayıp sorgulayan bir muhatapla gerçekleşen bu sert söyleşide Foucault, sol siyasetin kendi içindeki ideolojik ve siyasal tıkanıklığa ve Marksizm’e dair güncel analizler yapıyor. Marx’tan Sonra, yayımlanmış en uzun Foucault söyleşisi olma özelliğini de taşıyor.
– R.J. Goldstein
1984’teki ölümünden üç yıl önce gerçekleştirilen bu söyleşi dizisi, Foucault’nun büyük tartışmalara yol açan düşüncelerine dair doğrudan bir kaynak. Düşüncelerini sormakla kalmayıp sorgulayan bir muhatapla gerçekleşen bu sert söyleşide Foucault, sol siyasetin kendi içindeki ideolojik ve siyasal tıkanıklığa ve Marksizm’e dair güncel analizler yapıyor. Marx’tan Sonra, yayımlanmış en uzun Foucault söyleşisi olma özelliğini de taşıyor.
136 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
5 people are currently reading
142 people want to read
About the author
Michel Foucault
763 books6,484 followersPaul-Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationships between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 6, 2021
آقای امیرهوشنگ افتخاری راد! لطفا دست از سر صنعت ترجمه بردارید! نشر چشمه گرامی، که سکان مجموعه به اصطلاح "پرتابهای فکر" را به ایشان و هم پیالگانشان سپرده اید، تنها در حال خدشه دار کردن اعتبار خودتان هستید با پروراندن چنین شبه مترجمانی که بدترین نوع خیانت را نسبت به زبان فارسی و فارسی زبانان مرتکب می شوند
خودتان این چند خط را از ابتدای کتاب بخوانید و قضاوت کنید
"اگر قدرت، تمامیت ببخشد، چگونه می توان درون ماندگاری هر یک از قلمروهای تحقیقی را توضیح داد (شرط هر خرده قدرت که بدون آن درون ماندگاری بلافاصله به نمودی محض مستحیل می شد که مولد تکنیک های خاص روابط نیست؟ آیا مگر ایده قدرت فراگیر و دربرگیرنده، به منزله بنیاد گفتمان فوکو، (که او تلاش زیادی کرد نفی اش کند) از نو ظاهر نمیشود؟"
آیا مترجم با زبان فارسی هم آشنا نیست؟ دستور زبان خودمان را هم نمیداند؟ آیا نشر وزین! چشمه ویراستار ندارد تا دو کلمه سوالی را در یک جمله به کار نبرد یا حداقل پرانتزی را که باز کرده است ببندد تا خواننده بیش از این دچار سردرگمی نشود؟ نسبت ما و دنیای ترجمه مملکتمان از گریه و زاری هم زمان زیادی است که عبور کرده است
خودتان این چند خط را از ابتدای کتاب بخوانید و قضاوت کنید
"اگر قدرت، تمامیت ببخشد، چگونه می توان درون ماندگاری هر یک از قلمروهای تحقیقی را توضیح داد (شرط هر خرده قدرت که بدون آن درون ماندگاری بلافاصله به نمودی محض مستحیل می شد که مولد تکنیک های خاص روابط نیست؟ آیا مگر ایده قدرت فراگیر و دربرگیرنده، به منزله بنیاد گفتمان فوکو، (که او تلاش زیادی کرد نفی اش کند) از نو ظاهر نمیشود؟"
آیا مترجم با زبان فارسی هم آشنا نیست؟ دستور زبان خودمان را هم نمیداند؟ آیا نشر وزین! چشمه ویراستار ندارد تا دو کلمه سوالی را در یک جمله به کار نبرد یا حداقل پرانتزی را که باز کرده است ببندد تا خواننده بیش از این دچار سردرگمی نشود؟ نسبت ما و دنیای ترجمه مملکتمان از گریه و زاری هم زمان زیادی است که عبور کرده است
January 21, 2023
کتابی سخت خوان و پراکنده. با این وضع روحی که داریم نمی توان چنین کتاب هایی را خواند. خواندم اما انگار چیزی نخواندم. شاید فرصتی دیگر با فراغ بال بیشتر...
April 10, 2020
فوکو با تأثیری که از نیچه و باتای و بلانشو گرفت، درصدد بود تا به جایی خارج از سوژه/انقیاد پیدا کند (با فراتر رفتن از مرزِ-تجربهها). او نشان داد که سوژه هم ساخته میشود، برخلاف اگزیستانسیالیسم که آن را پیشفرض میگیرد. برای مثال، وقتی جنون به عنوان ابژه شناخته شد، همزمان سوژهای که جنون را میفهمید هم زاده شد، یعنی انسان عقلانی.
فوکو خود را به شدت متأثر از جنبشهای دهه شصت میداند؛ اینکه چطور فرانسه و تونس و پراگ و سوئد، همگی نارضایتی در جوانان خود به وجود آورده بودند. به نظر او شورشهای دانشجویی به خاطر احساس «سرکوب مستمر در زندگی روزمره توسط دولت یا نهادهای دیگر و گروههای سرکوبگر» بود. نتیجتاً فوکو این قدرت را در بدنهی اجتماعی پیگیری میکند و آن را در تیمارستان، زندان، بیمارستان و غیره مییابد. ردیابی او از قدرت، به عقل و هنجارمندی میرسد که نقطهی اشتراکش با مکتب فرانکفورت است. مثلاً قدرت عدهای تحتعنوان عاقلین بر مجانین تثبیت شده است.
فوکو خود را به شدت متأثر از جنبشهای دهه شصت میداند؛ اینکه چطور فرانسه و تونس و پراگ و سوئد، همگی نارضایتی در جوانان خود به وجود آورده بودند. به نظر او شورشهای دانشجویی به خاطر احساس «سرکوب مستمر در زندگی روزمره توسط دولت یا نهادهای دیگر و گروههای سرکوبگر» بود. نتیجتاً فوکو این قدرت را در بدنهی اجتماعی پیگیری میکند و آن را در تیمارستان، زندان، بیمارستان و غیره مییابد. ردیابی او از قدرت، به عقل و هنجارمندی میرسد که نقطهی اشتراکش با مکتب فرانکفورت است. مثلاً قدرت عدهای تحتعنوان عاقلین بر مجانین تثبیت شده است.
August 2, 2024
از اونجایی که ستاره دادن به کتابها رو کاملاً سلیقهای و مبتنی بر تجربه فردی با کتاب میدونم، به این کتاب دوتا ستاره میدم. دلیلش هم اینه که برام سخت بود باهاش ارتباط بگیرم و شاید برای من نوشته نشده بود، شاید.
اگر اصطلاحاتش رو کامل میفهمیدم، شاید بهش 3 ستاره ونیم میدادم(((=
اگر اصطلاحاتش رو کامل میفهمیدم، شاید بهش 3 ستاره ونیم میدادم(((=
February 2, 2023
Of course it's the nature of the way this book has been edited, but the sprawl of topics here means few chapters really go into depth on any issue - always giving a slight overview of the surface debates, and occasionally giving an in-depth comment or two concerning some tangential subject. Really this book ought to have either been a fair bit longer a little more focussed. Nevertheless, a few portions of this are genuinely insightful - often when Foucault is given the time to speak at length on a topic, and often when he's at loggerheads with Trombadori.
July 12, 2013
Less about Marx than it is about Marxists and Marxism. Foucault is interrogated by an intellectual of the Italian Communist Party (during the period of Autonomia), and as a response offers unique insights into his political positions, as well as the intended use of his ideas, which he meant as a mapping of apparatuses to be put to use by combatants. Proto-critical metaphysics.
October 16, 2024
A FASCINATING AND REVEALING SERIES OF INTERVIEWS
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, and social theorist and activist; he wrote many books. Openly gay, he died of AIDS---the first “public figure” in France to die of the virus.
The Preface to this 1981 book states, “In this series of interviews from 1978, however, we find few indications of Foucault’s later directions… These interviews therefore provide a contribution to our understanding of Foucault’s thinking in the late 1970s… The range of topics and wealth of detail thus make these discussions perhaps the single best source for understanding Foucault’s own views of his career at that time. But more important, I think, these interviews are valuable for the DIALOGUE that emerges… [Interviewer Duccio] Trombadori was a journalist for… the daily newspaper of the Italian Communist Party. Foucault’s antipathy toward Communist parties… is well known; it is extremely rare to find him engaged in serious discussion with a Communist intellectual.” (Pg. 9-10)
Foucault explains in the first interview, “I consider myself more an experimenter than a theorist; I don’t develop deductive systems to apply uniformly in different fields of research. When I write, I do it above all to change myself and not to think the same thing as before.” (Pg. 27) He continues, “Each of my books is a way of dismantling an object, and of constructing a method of analysis toward that end. Once a work is finished, I can of course more or less through hindsight, deduce a methodology from the completed experience. And thus I happen to write alternatively what I’d call books of exploration and books of method… I don’t consider myself a philosopher. What I do is neither a way of doing philosophy not a way of suggesting to others not to do it.” (Pg. 28-29)
He points out, “In the course of my work, I utilize methods that are part of the classic repertory: demonstration, proof by means of historical documentation, quoting other texts, referral to authoritative comments, the relationship between ideas and facts, the proposal of explanatory patterns, etc. There’s nothing original in that. From this point of view, whatever I assert in my writing can be verified or refuted as in any other history book.” (Pg. 32-33)
He says of his book “Madness and Civilization,” “the book was judged a direct attack against modern psychiatry and a manifesto of anti-psychiatry. This was absolutely not my intention for at least two reasons: first, when I wrote the book in Poland in 1958, anti-psychiatry didn’t exist… second, it wasn’t a matter in any case of a direct attack on contemporary psychiatry, because it stopped at analyzing facts and events which took place no later than the beginning of the nineteenth century. And so why did people insist on seeing in that work a direct attack on contemporary psychiatry?” (Pg. 35)
He recalls, “Nietzsche, Blanchot, and Bataille … are the writers who permitted me to free myself from the others who had formed me during my university education at the beginning of the 1950s… It is in relation to this intellectual panorama, if you will, that my choice was brought to maturity: on the one hand, not to become a philosophy professor, and on the other, to find something completely different from existentialism. Thus my encounter with Bataille, Blanchot and, through them, my reading of Nietzsche. What did they represent for me? First of all, an invitation to call into question the category of the ‘subject,’ its primacy and its originating function…” (Pg. 45-46)
He says about his book “The Order of Things: “[it was] a very technical book that was especially directed at specialists of the philosophy of science… I intended to address scholars above all. But to tell the truth, those weren’t the problems that excited me the most. I have already spoken to you about the ‘limit-experiences’; this is really the theme that fascinates me. Madness, death, sexuality, crime: these are the things that attract my attention most. Instead, I have always considered ‘The Order of Things’ a kind of formal exercise.” (Pg. 99-100)
He asserts, “I don’t mean that it’s necessary to construct history as one pleases, but it’s a fact, for instance, that I have never felt fully satisfied with the results reached by others in the field of historical research. Even if I have referred to and used many historical studies, I have always tried to conduct at first hand the historical analyses in the fields that interested me.” (Pg. 125)
He observes, “I have never presumed that ‘power’ was something that could explain everything. It was not my objective to substitute an explanation based on power for one based on economics. I tried to coordinate and systematize the different analyses and approaches formulated with regard to power, without depriving them of what was empirical, that is, in a certain sense something that remained to be clarified. For me, power is that which must be explained… I always come up against the question of ‘power.’ It’s a question that no theoretical system… has ever managed to account for.” (Pg. 148-149)
Although there are various collections of Foucault’s interviews in print, this fairly brief book contains some of the most interesting. It will be of great value to anyone studying Foucault, and the development of his thought.
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, and social theorist and activist; he wrote many books. Openly gay, he died of AIDS---the first “public figure” in France to die of the virus.
The Preface to this 1981 book states, “In this series of interviews from 1978, however, we find few indications of Foucault’s later directions… These interviews therefore provide a contribution to our understanding of Foucault’s thinking in the late 1970s… The range of topics and wealth of detail thus make these discussions perhaps the single best source for understanding Foucault’s own views of his career at that time. But more important, I think, these interviews are valuable for the DIALOGUE that emerges… [Interviewer Duccio] Trombadori was a journalist for… the daily newspaper of the Italian Communist Party. Foucault’s antipathy toward Communist parties… is well known; it is extremely rare to find him engaged in serious discussion with a Communist intellectual.” (Pg. 9-10)
Foucault explains in the first interview, “I consider myself more an experimenter than a theorist; I don’t develop deductive systems to apply uniformly in different fields of research. When I write, I do it above all to change myself and not to think the same thing as before.” (Pg. 27) He continues, “Each of my books is a way of dismantling an object, and of constructing a method of analysis toward that end. Once a work is finished, I can of course more or less through hindsight, deduce a methodology from the completed experience. And thus I happen to write alternatively what I’d call books of exploration and books of method… I don’t consider myself a philosopher. What I do is neither a way of doing philosophy not a way of suggesting to others not to do it.” (Pg. 28-29)
He points out, “In the course of my work, I utilize methods that are part of the classic repertory: demonstration, proof by means of historical documentation, quoting other texts, referral to authoritative comments, the relationship between ideas and facts, the proposal of explanatory patterns, etc. There’s nothing original in that. From this point of view, whatever I assert in my writing can be verified or refuted as in any other history book.” (Pg. 32-33)
He says of his book “Madness and Civilization,” “the book was judged a direct attack against modern psychiatry and a manifesto of anti-psychiatry. This was absolutely not my intention for at least two reasons: first, when I wrote the book in Poland in 1958, anti-psychiatry didn’t exist… second, it wasn’t a matter in any case of a direct attack on contemporary psychiatry, because it stopped at analyzing facts and events which took place no later than the beginning of the nineteenth century. And so why did people insist on seeing in that work a direct attack on contemporary psychiatry?” (Pg. 35)
He recalls, “Nietzsche, Blanchot, and Bataille … are the writers who permitted me to free myself from the others who had formed me during my university education at the beginning of the 1950s… It is in relation to this intellectual panorama, if you will, that my choice was brought to maturity: on the one hand, not to become a philosophy professor, and on the other, to find something completely different from existentialism. Thus my encounter with Bataille, Blanchot and, through them, my reading of Nietzsche. What did they represent for me? First of all, an invitation to call into question the category of the ‘subject,’ its primacy and its originating function…” (Pg. 45-46)
He says about his book “The Order of Things: “[it was] a very technical book that was especially directed at specialists of the philosophy of science… I intended to address scholars above all. But to tell the truth, those weren’t the problems that excited me the most. I have already spoken to you about the ‘limit-experiences’; this is really the theme that fascinates me. Madness, death, sexuality, crime: these are the things that attract my attention most. Instead, I have always considered ‘The Order of Things’ a kind of formal exercise.” (Pg. 99-100)
He asserts, “I don’t mean that it’s necessary to construct history as one pleases, but it’s a fact, for instance, that I have never felt fully satisfied with the results reached by others in the field of historical research. Even if I have referred to and used many historical studies, I have always tried to conduct at first hand the historical analyses in the fields that interested me.” (Pg. 125)
He observes, “I have never presumed that ‘power’ was something that could explain everything. It was not my objective to substitute an explanation based on power for one based on economics. I tried to coordinate and systematize the different analyses and approaches formulated with regard to power, without depriving them of what was empirical, that is, in a certain sense something that remained to be clarified. For me, power is that which must be explained… I always come up against the question of ‘power.’ It’s a question that no theoretical system… has ever managed to account for.” (Pg. 148-149)
Although there are various collections of Foucault’s interviews in print, this fairly brief book contains some of the most interesting. It will be of great value to anyone studying Foucault, and the development of his thought.
August 14, 2025
FOUCAULT: I was a bit harsh in believing that it was ignorance, but it wasn’t just ignorance. To explain why, I have to refer to something personal. At the end of the day, I was a bit surprised that they would be surprised, as I’m completely steeped in Blanchot and Bataille. It was they who were really my teachers. I can say that what for me was a sort of point of rupture with what had been dominant during my youth was reading Sartre’s article on Bataille. It seemed to me that in Sartre’s incomprehension of Bataille, there was something that to me constituted the grounds for an irreparable rupture and ultimately the indication of something that was without doubt essential to our era.
''''
In fact, what’s important for philosophy, for politics, and ultimately for us all is what Bataille called “experience”—that is, something that isn’t the affirmation of the subject in the foundational continuity of their own project. It consists instead in that rupture and that risk by which the subject accepts their own transmutation, transformation, abolition, in their relation to objects, to others, to truth, to death, and so on. That’s experience. It’s risking no longer being oneself.
'''
I concur/ I experienced
''''
In fact, what’s important for philosophy, for politics, and ultimately for us all is what Bataille called “experience”—that is, something that isn’t the affirmation of the subject in the foundational continuity of their own project. It consists instead in that rupture and that risk by which the subject accepts their own transmutation, transformation, abolition, in their relation to objects, to others, to truth, to death, and so on. That’s experience. It’s risking no longer being oneself.
'''
I concur/ I experienced
November 22, 2021
First thing any prospective buyer should know is that this book is reproduced in its entirety in volume three of the Essential Works, which is much cheaper and has a lot more content. Regarding this book, it’s a good one; less Marx-focused than the title implies, but there are definitely a lot of conclusions drawn here that have a lot to do with Marx. The interviewer comes across as not quite understanding Foucault’s ideas, which is good, since it allows room for Foucault to respond to some of the more common criticisms of his ideas. It’s not particularly insightful, certainly by Foucault’s standards, but it could be a good introduction to his work, and it clarifies a lot of points. I can see myself using this in future, absolutely.
February 4, 2024
Foucault is very cogent in interviews and this book covers his relationship with other philosophers and movements in a way that's almost entirely absent from his books. It talks a lot about the motivation for and reaction to his first few books and how he perceives criticism of his project. There's actually not that much engagement with Marxism, and what's there has more to do with historical circumstances and a certain Marxist orthodoxy rather than concepts, which I found disappointing. Foucault also comes out and says "I don't think it's my job to offer solutions" and equivocates greatly when pressed about his lack of politics, something I've always thought was his weakest point. Still interesting to hear his defense against common criticisms.
February 7, 2025
somewhat disappointing, foucault seems more occupied with arguing with the interviewer and stating the same things over and over as opposed to creating a fruitful dialogue with marx. although it does contain a lot of interesting insights into things like the PCF, foucault’s relationship althusser, the political implications of structuralism, the legacy of may 68, his time with the GIP, his relationship with contemporary politics and philosophers, and his relationship with the frankfurt school. it’s an interesting text you could read in an afternoon, but nothing more. read it only if you’re starved of foucault interviews or wanna hear him comment on the things i listed.
Read
January 2, 2024A confrontational and brisk set of conversations on Foucault’s methods, sense of Western philosophy and intellectual history, and politics. Foucault acknowledges coming to the Frankfurt School belatedly: “if I had encountered the Frankfurt School while young, I would have been seduced to the point of doing nothing else in life but the job of commenting on them.” Less 'on Marx' than on Marxist concerns and currents more generally.
October 21, 2020
A great introduction to Foucault's work - his thoughts on the Structuralists vs. phenomenologists and existentialists, on knowledge and power, 1968, Algiers and new futures. At times the interviewer insists too much on his points and the end is a bit less exciting than the rest of the book, but nontheless a thoroughly lovely read.
April 3, 2023
مجموعه بسیار جالبی هست از گفتگوهای میشل فوکو با دوتچو ترومبادوری. نظرات فوکو راجع به مارکسیسم-لنینیسم، روشنفکران آن دوره فرانسه و همچنین داگمایی که مارکسیسم رو احاطه و اون رو به یک ایدئولوژی یا باور مطلق تبدیل کرده، مطالعه جالبی بود برای من.
◀️ متاسفانه ترجمه امیرهوشنگ افتخاریراد از انتشارات چشمه گاها خیلی بیخودی سخت و پیچیده شده و اشتباهات مربوط به قواعد هم قابل مشاهده ان.
◀️ متاسفانه ترجمه امیرهوشنگ افتخاریراد از انتشارات چشمه گاها خیلی بیخودی سخت و پیچیده شده و اشتباهات مربوط به قواعد هم قابل مشاهده ان.
January 15, 2022
o titulo é clickbait mas gostei
Read
July 28, 2010foucault,marx,theory
September 10, 2015
This series of interviews has almost nothing to do with Marx, but does shed more light on how Foucault sees his works used and some of his thoughts on power and subjectivity.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews