Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  292 / 176 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 292 / 176 Next Page
Page Background






By applying Bloom’s ideas to a reading of


, we can

claim that Said is playing the role of a strong critic who misreads

Foucault in order to apply his ideas and add a layer of resistance

that is missing in the original context. Not surprisingly, Said faults

Foucault for a lack of “political commitment” within his work,

arguing that he is more interested in the mechanics of power as a

fetish than as an object to be opposed or resisted (Said, 2001: 77).

In other words, Foucault appears to be “more fascinated with the

way power operates than committed to trying to change power

relations in society” (Ashcroft & Ahluwalia, 1999: 72).

Consequently, his theory of power leaves no room for resistance

and becomes a “Spinozist conception” that “has drawn a circle

around itself, constituting a unique territory in which Foucault has

imprisoned himself and others with him” (Said, 1983: 245). Rather

than being trapped within such a system, Said “articulate[s] the

potential to resist and recreate” such power (Ashcroft & Ahluwalia,

1999: 72), which he does by reading Foucault’s theory of discourse

against the grain and thereby setting himself up as a “bad”

Foucauldian. This is congruent with his belief in humanism and the

worldliness of writing in general. Likewise, his “inconsistency” as a

theorist is consistent with his call for “non-coercive” knowledge

(Said, 2001: 80). For when theory or, for that matter, any form of

knowledge is no longer subject to the process of interpretation, it

becomes ossified into a form of ideology or, worst of all, theology.

Allow me then to return to the criticisms of Clifford and

Young, starting with the claim that Said fails to provide any

“alternative” to the phenomenon he sets out to critique. If this is

the case, then neither does Clifford nor Young. While Clifford

rebukes Said for applying “the tools of a Western theoretical

tradition to critique that [same] tradition,” he also fails to provide a

(1997: xxii). Likewise, I will avoid making any similar claims about the

relationship or rivalry between Said and Foucault.