Der französische Philosoph und
Historiker Michel FoucaultToday, he is one of the most cited intellectuals of the second half of the 20th century. It is no wonder that the reception of his thinking is no longer comprehensible in almost all scientific disciplines, political activism, art, and even life counseling. This reception includes critical scholarship and non-dogmatic thinking, as well as naive quoting, stubborn refusal to understand, and foolish postmodern bashing.
Das kommt und geht in Wellen, und
gegenwärtig scheint mit dem Erscheinen des kontroversen Buches Links ≠ woke der Philosophin
Susan Neiman gerade wieder ein Wellenkamm erreicht. Für Neiman ist Foucault der „Pate der woken Linken“. Dabei sei seine Botschaft reaktionär und eigentlich
nur mit jener des Nazi-Juristen Carl Schmitt zu vergleichen. Denn er verwische
beständig die Grenze zwischen Deskriptivem und Normativem. Er sei ein „Zyniker“
und „Nihilist“, ja ein „amoralischer Mensch“, wie sie den Linguisten Noam ChomskyHe is quoted approvingly;
he despised the distinction between good and evil, enlightenment, and the idea
of progress. And because he rejected the universalism of the Enlightenment, he
significantly contributed to „tribal thinking“ – that is, identity politics.
Indeed: if Foucault is presented in this way, he either could not have been „left-wing“ – or the left that refers to him is simply „woke“ and
therefore no longer a true left. In any case, Foucault, who rejected the concept of
postmodernism for himself and insisted on enlightenment as an „attitude“,
would have been surprised by all the attributions made to him today.