why have the brahmin-savarnas in academia taken up foucault so strongly.. the plainest reason is that he doesn't question their power, property or privilege.. if they wanted students to study the knowledge-power nexus, in the indian context, they could teach phule or ambedkar..
if they wanted to teach resistance to dominant discourses, they could refer to kabir, raidas, nanak or basava.. if they wanted students to learn the 'culture of the self' they could explore the buddha.. why foucault?
did india go through the french revolution or the paris commune.. or colonise major parts of asia or the americas or africa? he doesn't fit the indian historical, cultural, socio-economic context even by the furthest stretch of your imagination.. why foucault?
because for upper caste, men and women, he makes it very easy to dismiss caste, roundly.. and still emerge very cool and 'revolutionary'.. .
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
