No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2012
I thank the Leiden Journal of International Law for this opportunity to address the provocative responses by Jean-Claude Monod and Lorenzo Zucca to ‘The Sacred Conspiracy’. In this short reply, I seek to clarify some misapprehensions, as well as to sharpen the differences between us.
1 Foucault, M., ‘Nietzsche, la généalogie, l'histoire’, in Bachelard, S. et al. , Hommage à Jean Hyppolite (1971), 145Google Scholar (my translation).
2 Breton, A., ‘Preface to the Max Ernst Exhibition of May, 1921’, quoted in Ernst, M., Beyond Painting (translated by Tanning, D.) (1948), 21Google Scholar.
3 Foucault, supra note 1.
4 Ibid., at 158.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., at 160.
7 Ibid., at 146.
8 Ibid., at 148.
9 I wrote: ‘This homology is close enough to suggest that the two sets of dichotomies may be viewed, respectively, as anthropologized and historicized versions of very similar notions.’ Zucca seems to think that I am here referring to the relationship between the two forms of secularization; in fact, however, I am referring to the relationship between two dichotomies: (i) secularization-retreat versus secularization transfer; and (ii) the Durkheimian opposition of the absolute heterogeneity of the sacred and the profane versus the contagiousness of the relationship between the sacred and the profane.
10 Foucault, supra note 1, at 168.