In the final section (which unfortunately only consists of a single chapter), Nichols shifts focu... more In the final section (which unfortunately only consists of a single chapter), Nichols shifts focus briefly in order to resituate his project within the larger discussion of social critique. More specifically, he contends with other thinkers within the Marxist tradition. This section is illuminating, though brief. Nichols contends that the methodology that he thinks can be developed through Foucault and Heidegger can overcome the ambiguities and shortcomings of such thinkers as György Lucacs and Axel Honneth. As it was hinted at above, it seems that the largest issue with this section is its brevity. While Nichols’ focus has not made a drastic shift, he does turn to a group of thinkers who are not explicitly working within the same tradition of Heidegger or Foucault. Thus, while his accounts and critiques of them are fair, more bridging was perhaps necessary. Finally, (and this may be praise just as much as it is criticism), Nichols withholds explicating his conclusion until the final few pages, and once it is provided, the work quickly concludes. While it is clear that Nichols’ project is to provide us with a methodology rather than to actually employ this methodology, given the effort that he expends framing it while at the same time deferring an account of it until the final pages, the conclusion itself merits more than the few pages it is allotted. The conclusion, if accepted, raises further questions and demands further explication and development. This is praiseworthy, however, since it spurs and demands further considerations and work beyond what is found in the text.
In the final section (which unfortunately only consists of a single chapter), Nichols shifts focu... more In the final section (which unfortunately only consists of a single chapter), Nichols shifts focus briefly in order to resituate his project within the larger discussion of social critique. More specifically, he contends with other thinkers within the Marxist tradition. This section is illuminating, though brief. Nichols contends that the methodology that he thinks can be developed through Foucault and Heidegger can overcome the ambiguities and shortcomings of such thinkers as György Lucacs and Axel Honneth. As it was hinted at above, it seems that the largest issue with this section is its brevity. While Nichols’ focus has not made a drastic shift, he does turn to a group of thinkers who are not explicitly working within the same tradition of Heidegger or Foucault. Thus, while his accounts and critiques of them are fair, more bridging was perhaps necessary. Finally, (and this may be praise just as much as it is criticism), Nichols withholds explicating his conclusion until the final few pages, and once it is provided, the work quickly concludes. While it is clear that Nichols’ project is to provide us with a methodology rather than to actually employ this methodology, given the effort that he expends framing it while at the same time deferring an account of it until the final pages, the conclusion itself merits more than the few pages it is allotted. The conclusion, if accepted, raises further questions and demands further explication and development. This is praiseworthy, however, since it spurs and demands further considerations and work beyond what is found in the text.
Uploads
Papers by Simona Forti