|
October 27, 2005
The following quote is from this paper by Brad Stone about some recently published lectures courses by Foucault.
"Society Must Be Defended" is probably best thought of as a genealogical text dealing with the emergence of modern biopower through the notion of race. In this essay, race is viewed as a discursive concept, and therefore placed within what I believe is the larger archaeological goal of the lectures: the archaeology of historico-political discourse. This discourse is discontinuous with the philosophico-juridical discourse of Machiavelli and Hobbes and the Classical notion of history, whose purpose was to legitimize sovereignty through an "impartial" retelling of past events. Historico-political discourse, however, holds that impartiality is impossible, that truths (especially historical truths) are based on which side of the battle one is on.
Foucault's historico-political discourse is against sovereignity. It is:
"...a discourse that cuts off the king's head, or which at least does without a sovereign and denounces him ..... and serves as a counterhistory of sovereignty. Instead of using history to show the greatness of the sovereign, it would break up the unity of the sovereign law that imposes obligations; it also breaks up the continuity of glory... It will be the discourse of those who have no glory.....who now find themselves, perhaps for a time.....in darkness and silence."
|
Historical truths are difficult. It is possible to be objective, and one way to do it is through speaking from personalities and viewpoints of the time.
I spent a lot of time studying and writing on the Australian Flying Corps. One issue which isnt well understood, nor well written about is the nomenclature for the squadron names. The British thought Australian squadrons were dominion, so gave then British names.
So 1 Sqn AFC became 67 Sqn RFC. Australia complained, so the British changed it to 67 (Australian) Sqn RFC. Australia complained again, so British book-keeping eventually changed it to 1 Sqn AFC and brought British book-keeping inline with Australian book-keeping. This was also not helped by Australia calling mixing the squadron numbering between 2 and 3 Sqn as well.
But the pilots and commanders of the time leave clues, teased out of auto-biographies and writings on what some thought. Typical of Australia, was the loyalist vs independence dichotomy. Some, like Oswald Watt calimed that we (Au and UK) were all in it together so it doesnt matter. Others, like Richard Williams said that the British has as much right naming 1 Sqn AFC as 67 Sqn RFC, as they did calling the 2nd Division AIF the Northumberland Division.
So the historical truth does become apparent. As the AFC squadrons were Australian units under the Australian Imperial Force, Australian book-keeping takes precedence. Many of the Australian leaders who were subject to this, did not like it either.
This is an issue of politics, but the correct and historically truthful nomenclature can be arrived at. Though this issue does not require, or define a narrative, which can be more wishy-washy.