Reviews for The politics of truth

The average rating for The politics of truth based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-08-23 00:00:00 Gary Mazin The book is saved from a 1 star rating only because of a few insights into the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, as well as Foucault, though as an introduction to the latter the book would be seriously misleading. The bridge between Foucault and Marx is not what Barrett thinks. Though Barrett offers (reasonably) close readings of some Laclau, Mouffe, and Foucault, the main thrust of her argument in favor of post-Marxist theory relies upon the construction of a ridiculous straw man, "Marxism," in particular the concept of "ideology." Barrett overestimates the centrality of this concept grossly; it is as if, with the collapse of "ideology," "Marxism" itself would also collapse. But more important is that in the first place Barrett posits the unity of a number of texts with the term "Marxism" without considering how problematic this gesture is - surprising, given that Barrett demonstrates familiarity with Derrida, who would surely regard her "Marxism" as impossible. Barrett would like "Marxism" to constitute a unified system of thought - yet in her discussion of the place of "ideology" within this "Marxism" she again and again emphasizes the disagreements internal to this "Marxism" over what "ideology" is. If "Marxism" is already so confused, Barrett, if it is the pathetic mess you make it out to be, then why counterpose it to your Foucault, who is so sophisticated? Does "Marxism" warrant this rebuttal, if it is what you make it? The construction of this "Marxism" allows Barrett to avoid coming to terms with the complex arguments of the "Marxist" thinkers she is dealing with; she constantly reduces these thinkers to examples of types - epistemological realist, conventionalist, and the list goes on. She accuses "Marxists" of economic reductionism, but she can only do so by performing absurd reductions herself. Marx's own writings are consulted only to show how "contradictory" his writings on ideology are. Althusser is handled in a particularly rough manner; her Althusser is unrecognizable. No mention is made of the influence of Althusser on Foucault - the latter was the former's student for a time. It is as if the very proximity of Althusser to Foucault - see Warren Montag's essay on the two - forces Barrett to create a caricature of the former, the arguments of which she can then claim to "demolish" (her word). Barrett seems to not want to understand Althusser; she seems allergic to him. This might explain why she focuses only on his essay on ideology, his essay on Freud and Lacan, and "For Marx." A better understanding of Althusser - and one is necessary if one wants to truly be done with him, as Barrett does - would require reading his essential study on Marx's "Capital" and his essay on Hegel and Marx, which might have cleared up a lot concerning the role of agency in his thought, maybe in "Marxism" - but I myself stay away from such abstractions. At one point Barrett expresses "surprise" over how popular Althusser was amongst leftist circles in his time. She would like to believe that this says something about those leftist circles; I think it tells us much more about her. She doesn't get what those leftist circles got, she says. Indeed.

Review # 2 was written on 2007-12-18 00:00:00 Krisztian Kiss not sure why i kept reading this