I was reading some articles in wikipedia when I came across what has to be the most dishonest and foolish defense ever. You can see it for yourself if you check out the article on "Ship of Fools" and the related "talk" page.

Now, let us start with something simple. The "ship of fools" is an allegory, a metaphor, a symbol, a fable, a lot of things, but it was never a concrete, historical reality. The reason is simple to see. Ships cost money, and in primitive times they were even more precious than now. It is that reason that only prominent vikings received ship burials. So, if you want to rid your town of lunatics and cretins, you would not waste a precious ship to do so, you would throw stones at them until they left. So, no one anywhere ever set their town idiots and madmen adrift in a ship.

Then along comes Michel Foucault, with whom I have countless objections*, and he makes a statement which VERY CLEARLY is based upon the idea that literal ships of fools not only existed, but were common throughout the middle ages. To wit, he said:

"Renaissance men developed a delightful, yet horrible way of dealing with their mad denizens: they were put on a ship and entrusted to mariners because folly, water, and sea, as everyone then "knew," had an affinity for each other. Thus, "Ship of Fools" crisscrossed the sea and canals of Europe with their comic and pathetic cargo of souls. Some of them found pleasure and even a cure in the changing surroundings, in the isolation of being cast off, while others withdrew further, became worse, or died alone and away from their families. The cities and villages which had thus rid themselves of their crazed and crazy, could now take pleasure in watching the exciting sideshow when a ship full of foreign lunatics would dock at their harbors."

Now, this strange statement, for obvious reasons, leads to many raising the objection that ships of fools were allegorical not real, and that anyone claiming to understand history should know that. IT not only paints Foucault as a gullible fool himself, but also a poor researcher, or maybe a man willing to twist the truth when it serves his purposes. Whether he was deluded, misled, or deceitful, it says nothing good about Foucault that eh wrote these words.

So, of course, just as the lit crit crowd came to the defense of DeMann when his Nazi collaboration was exposed in the 80's, our deconstructivist-friendly wikipedia contributors have to come to the defense of one of their "giants"**. And the defense is quite, um... I honestly don't know how to describe it. So I will just print it here:

Contension of Scholarship

I have read 'Rewritting the History of Madness' and agree with the above author that this book does address many of the concerns which they would like this subject to reflect, specifically, the contention about a certain statement which Michel Foucault made on the subject in his Madness and Civilization which seemed to say that these 'mythic vessels' did set sail, and could be seen drifting through the many rivers of Europe. This statement of Foucaults (I would like to reproduce it here but havent got the text at hand) is the primary source of contention in present histiographical dispute. I agree with the above author, if I understand his muddled speech correctly, that many of the criticisms raised by historians against Foucaults rereading and rewriting of this episode in European history are naive. Let me qualify what I mean. What seems to me, as an amateur Historian, to be happening here in this dispute (both the one surrounding foucaults work and the work of the above author) is a kind of confrontation between two very different styles of History. We may, provisionally, distinguish these two styles as History and Mythistory. I also agree that, as subtle as this confrontation is, it is important to recognise it and reflect it here (which is what I understand the above author as trying to say). What I dont see is this confrontation made clear in any texts written on the subject. It seems that this revision of history is still too close to use for us to get any kind of perspective upon it that would allow us to summerise it... \

As for the statement:

"Michel Foucault, who wrote Madness and Civilization, saw in the ship of fools a symbol of the consciousness of sin and evil alive in the medieval mindset and imaginative landscapes of the Renaissance"

I would certainly agree that this is the significance we are to accord this 'cultural motif'. It would be difficult to site sources, however, to establish this meaning clearly. The works the author cites by Erasmus and Brandt are certainly the best place to look.

All I can say for certain is that I will be interested to watch this subject unfold... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.233.124 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 April 2008

As far as I can tell, the point of this is that, while Foucault may appear to be saying ships of fools really existed, that is only because we are so stupid, and the really smart people know he was really, um, saying... Look! Over there! Lacan! (The sound of running feet and a door slamming.)

Honestly, is this what passes for scholarship these days? The "revision of history" is "too close" for us to understand? No, sorry, Foucault is an ideologue and a dogmatic pseudoscholar whose fame rests on being an irrationalist Frenchman, who wrote verbose arguments for introducing the denigration of reason  into literature and history, arguments that, thanks to both being written in French, convoluted, and absurdly verbose, passed for scholarship, and thus allowed those who were covertly belittling rationalism in their writing to start doing so openly.

Sorry, but the truth is this: Foucault wrote a statement which is provably false (and not for the first time). Doing so calls into question both his scholarship and the conclusions he based on such pseudohistory. And no amount of loose, vague verbiage will make that fact go away.

Sometimes, after reading writing like this, I realize that I was quite lucky there were no open GRE dates and I had to forgo my dream of a doctorate in history. It probably saved me from several years of intellectual torture.

-------------------------------------------------

* In the interest of disclosure, I am quite opposed to all the "Lit Crit" schools of modern literary interpretation, be they called deconstructivist, structuralist, post-structuralist, or what have you. The absurdly convoluted, politicized and self-absorbed theories of Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, deMan, Fish, and the rest are absolute nonsense in my opinion. However, even had someone I respected made the statement Foucault did, I would call them to task for it. My criticism has nothing to do with my dislike for Foucault and everything to do with the dishonesty of his defenders.

** When intellectual pygmies like Foucault and DeMann are giants in your field, it is time to find a new field.
 
--------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

My collection of books criticizing modern literary criticism are currently packed away following my move. Once I can dig them out, I will probably have more to say on this topic, as it is one I find quite interesting. And for those who do not see the relevance, I would point out that many who have made a name creating absurd interpretation of fiction have now set their sights on the law, architecture and other fields, which makes this abomination important, as the socialist, irrationalist absurdities of deconstructivism are breaking out of the realm of literature and taking over, not just the humanities, but law as well.

UPDATE

I realize the author of the Wikipedia comment is hardly the best of Foucault's defenders, his spelling alone should tell us that he is not the first line of academic protectors. Still, his argument, though not quite as eloquent as the professionals, is in essence the same as those offered by the academic writers defending Foucault, so it seems a fair representative.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this is yet another example of a rather biased article making its way onto wikipedia. Note how the criticisms are solely in the discussion pages, while the main page presents a seemingly approving description of Foucault's comment? That seems to fit very well with the Wikipedia I have criticized before.

Those interested in my criticism of Wikipedia can see my past essays here:

Stop Confusing Me With The Facts!
Mystery Quotes
Wikipedia?
The Failure of Wikipedia
Opinion Masquerading as Fact
Funny Numbers
What is Wrong with Wikipedia?
Endangered Species
Sterility of Formal Economics
Deceiving Themselves?
A Question About Language

Some are criticisms of content (a few which only very tangentially involve Wikipedia), some of style, and some of the methodology and the theory behind wikipedia. However, overall, I think the entire list gives a pretty comprehensive explanation of everything I find wrong with Wikipedia, both in theory and practice.