« Machiavellian | Main | Deleuze and Guatarri on the national state and human rights »
barely polite insults
Richard Wolin, writing a review of Paras's _Foucault 2.0_ for the Chronicle of Higher Education writes:
"One wonders how long it will take Foucault's North American acolytes to reorient themselves in light of Paras's impressive findings."
'acolyte' is meant to be dismissive, in an academic and barely polite sort of way, correct? And seeing this made me think: What other terms can be used to say that the followers or users of so-and-so's thought are idiots, without using the word 'idiot' or something similar?
The only other one I can think of right now is 'adept.' Here are the definitions:
acolyte
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, acolit, from Medieval Latin acoluthus, from Middle Greek akolouthos, from Greek, adjective, following, from a-, ha- together (akin to Greek homos same) + keleuthos path
Date: 14th century
1 : one who assists a member of the clergy in a liturgical service by performing minor duties
2 : one who attends or assists: FOLLOWER
adept
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin adeptus alchemist who has attained the knowledge of how to change base metals into gold, from Latin, past participle of adipisci to attain, from ad- + apisci to reach -- more at APT
Date: 1709
: a highly skilled or well-trained individual: expert <an adept at chess>
Can anyone think of other terms for 'follower' that not-so-subtly communicate a writer's distaste? Of the two above, which do you think is the more dismissive, acolyte or adept?
By Swifty | August 30, 2006 in Afflicting the Comfortable, Foucault, Specious Rhetorical Strategies | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/5840828
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference barely polite insults:
» We are all governed from archive : s0metim3s
Below, the text of Foucaults speech, posthumously published by Libération under the title of Face aux gouvernements, les droits lHomme – the subject of much speculation - little of it interesting - on Foucaults &#... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 6, 2006 2:02:20 AM
Comments
Disciple -- conjures up the image of being blindly worshipful
Posted by: Ptochos | Aug 30, 2006 6:07:35 PM
His article, quite predictably, was a piece of crap. I was thinking of writing critical comments on it, but why? Despite pretentions to the contrary, Wolin clearly doesn't understand the people he writes about and - even worse - he doesn't even care to make an attempt.
Posted by: Craig | Aug 30, 2006 9:45:47 PM
Perhaps proselytizer and apostate have unjustly fallen t'ill repute?
Posted by: Matt | Aug 30, 2006 10:08:15 PM
There are a number of inappropriate yet true 'things' I can say with regard to the dismisser of Foucault referenced here. Yet, to do so would be, if not suicidal, then at least, very stupid. Some might call it unprofessional, but to me that 'smacks of' applying corporate norms to a field which should take risks. The best I can say is that I agree with the critical points and urge everyone to think the worst.
Posted by: jdean | Aug 31, 2006 1:11:27 AM
Ha ha Wolin sucks of course - but I like acolyte and adept. Also follow on with devotees, sycophants, adherents, aficianados, enthusiasts, fans, fanatics, buffs (I especially like this one - Foucault buffs are like film buffs but more prone to epistemological breaks). But my all time favourite comes from Bob Avakian in his 1979 book "Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions' where he calls Stalin 'the continuator of Lenin's work in leading the Soviet proletariat in the building of socialism' (page 205).
I'm tempted to say: 'CONTINUATORS of the world unite, we have nothing to add but the same...'
Actually the Avakian book is pretty good. Red Salute.
Posted by: john | Aug 31, 2006 3:21:34 AM
'Camp follower' is snidey, 'fellow traveller'is political, 'apostle' suggests sycophantery, 'protegé(e) suggests debt, 'hanger-on' suggest fawning.
Posted by: isakofsky | Aug 31, 2006 9:44:26 AM
Yes, Wolin's article could've been much, much better; but have any of you read Foucault 2.0? It's hard for me to tell from Craig's comment whether he's dismissing Wolin and Paras, Paras through Wolin, or just Wolin. The book itself strikes me as interesting, potentially, esp. in dialogue with the other recent one about his thoughts about the Iranian revolution; by which I mean, it looks like he may have reversed course after his flirtation with it, if Wolin's review is at all accurate. (I can't find many other references to the Paras, although I see it's "out for review" from Foucault Studies...which, as Craig noted the other day, may mean it's a long, long time coming.)
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Aug 31, 2006 3:35:10 PM
With respect to Foucault Studies, as I understand it, reviews are being posted as they are received, but articles are on hiatus as the editorial board sorts itself out... Perhaps there are people reading this closer to the journal who can confirm/disconfirm?
My comments are about Wolin; I haven't seen Paras' book yet.
Posted by: Craig | Aug 31, 2006 3:42:14 PM
I think that any term implying enthusiasm can be used to diss somebody, actually. Dorks are just people who care too much, about the wrong things. It's pretty easy to throw "that's a dumb thing to like" at anybody who cares about anything (experts, majors, fanciers, whatever).
The only term for enthusiasts (that I can think of) that is hard to use as an insult is "geek." That's the word you use to confess your attachment with pride. "Foucault geeks" sound like they do it on purpose, at least.
Posted by: Sarah | Aug 31, 2006 10:16:19 PM
The problem with "Foucault geeks" is that Anglo-Americans, on the whole - especially those identifying themselves as "Foucauldian" - don't have a particularly good grasp on Foucault's work. For what it is worth, when I'm being polemic, I use variations around "the governmentality school," "Anglo-Foucauldians," and "lapsed Althusserians."
Posted by: Craig | Aug 31, 2006 10:45:29 PM
The Paras book is ok for what it is. It's more of a historiography/biography of Foucault's late work than anything really philosophically or theoretically interesting.It struck me as a very "Harvard" book.
Posted by: Amish Lovelock | Sep 1, 2006 1:33:42 AM
'geeks' reminds me of its sister 'freaks' and 'wonks'. Someone could be a Foucauld wonk or be accused of being one.
Posted by: isakofsky | Sep 1, 2006 5:45:51 AM
"Groupies".
Posted by: warszawa | Sep 1, 2006 5:10:32 PM
Opposedly, for those belonging to the class of cheap and opportunist/habitual or sophomoric detractor:
"carping momus"
"petty panner"
"autogenetic diagnostic"
"Pavlovian caricaturist"
"automatic derogatogue"
I just made that last one up.
Posted by: Matt | Sep 1, 2006 11:16:54 PM
hmm, well Kant wrote that 'enthusiasm' was a universal recognisable on the faces of spectators rather than the participants of the french revolution. zizek has said something drawing on this and about foucault and the iranian revolution. can't remeber where it was. I think a stronger word is required than 'enthusiasm'. It seems closer to Weber's conception of a charismac relation.
Posted by: Glen | Sep 11, 2006 8:24:38 AM
'charismatic'
Posted by: Glen | Sep 11, 2006 8:26:38 AM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
