(PS: I think Jodi Dean is correct that many formal modellers – at least in political science – do think that one can only say something intellgible in some formal language. That is silly though.)

We will now return to our previously scheduled programming.

I think Dominick LaCapra’s History and Reading: Tocqueville, Foucault, French Studies might be very interesting both as a reflection on just these issues, and as a pretty good primer on the more important ends of neo-hermeneutic and post-structuralist thought (the bibliography is superb). His vocabulary is steeped in psychoanalysis too, which some people may not like (it’s what I like least about his stuff), but his use of it is thought-provoking in any case.

On Foucault, I’m not sure I’d agree on the “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” essay – it always seemed to me like a quick write-up of his reading notes on Nietzsche. I would recommend the final chapter of “The Archaeology of Knowledge.” Even if you don’t believe a word he says (and, after years, I’m still not sure), it is an intellectual performance of great grandeur and nobility. He is engaging with a particular tradition of intellectual history, arguing (much as he might reject the word), for a structuralist, constructivist approach to the history of ideas. The way in which he summarizes the tradition he opposes is the astonishing thing – he summarizes it, including its strengths, better than most of adherents ever could. Then (and only then, that’s the nobility of it)… he demolishes it, or makes a pretty good attempt. Read that, and you realize that, while Foucault can and should criticized on many grounds, many of his critics aren’t in the same league as him.

But, of course, most economists assume that they are the first people to ever consider a problem, so why both looking for any prior literature.

Anyway, Henry, I appreciate your questions. As a bridge to poststructuralism, perhaps work in social studies of science and technology, like anything by Latour. Some folks in this thread have already mentioned Foucault, which makes sense, given his self-description as a ‘happy positivist.’ I think his short essay “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ is clear and persuasive and could be useful to anyone.

Psychoanalysis is a different kettle of fish. Perhaps a starting point is anything by Adam Phillips, who writes beautifully and is not dogmatic. A potential problem, though, is that he is difficult to extend or apply. Eric Santner’s My Own Private Germany could be a good choice—it reads Judge Daniel Schreber’s psychosis in terms of a generalized crisis facing modernity. Finally, I think that the last chapter of Zizek’s Ticklish Subject could be a good bridge because it engages risk society theory.

In my earlier comment, you mean? Because there’s no snark in it as far as I can tell. As for the distinction between Jodi and Sinthome, well, that’s something they’ve hashed out themselves in the comments on I Cite, so I don’t think my reference to it is particularly snarky. Fact of the matter is, I’m not the lightning rod in these debates, I’m the…whatever the opposite of the lightning rod is. (In fact, I just posted a draft of a paper—still the top post on my site—which says much the same thing you do vis-a-vis “points of tangency/bridges/complementarities/whatever.”)

Kieran, that looks fascinating.