BOOKS
297
our scepticism. At times, he sounds like a systematized Orwell, or a
modernized Marx. That's because his system, like his mind, is a catch–
all, a sponge that absorbs whatever it comes in contact with, only to
inflate his theory. And although no one believes that his codes of
knowledge will surface any more than Lcvi-Strauss's structures of
myth , his free associations promise to help explain the "human
condition." Yet, he also shows that the entrenched powers of our
"rational" society won't be dislodged by the masses who delude
themselves into thinking they're free; nor does he believe that these
powers can maintain themselves. And Marxist society, a different sort
of police state, never
repres~nted
a solution for him. Hence, Marxists
accuse him (correctly) of missing a class viewpoint, while philoso–
phers, scientists, and historians question the validity of his as yet
unproven dogmatic assertions, and his scientificity. American sociolo–
gists, if they read him at all, "apply" him partially, and indirectly, to
attempt to influence policy.
Since we're producing more therapy and therapists, more laws and
lawyers, more crime and criminals, and more law enforcement and
police, Foucault argues that manipulation and deviance have taken
over. That's why he predicts the end of our era, even though he doesn't
indicate how it will come about, or what will take its place. And that's
why he's been called a millenarian-a millenarian who searches for
signs of the next age. Chances are that he won't find these signs in his
codes of knowledge. But because he has the resources to interpret the
conditions of our existence-the prerequisite for any sort of change–
he seems to be one of our prophets. Foucault himself is the marginal
man he writes about, the new Don Quixote who is lost between two
ages and who, just because he takes in everything, forever remains
ambivalent.
EDITH KURZWEIL
