+
From: jcharles@xxxxxxxxxxxx
+
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 13:16:58 est
Reg Lilly wrote:
"[Foucault] therefore also implies that all the concepts descriptive
of power's functioning were also univocal. However, what happens if
the symmetry between power and "target(s)" or effects is seen to be
asymmetrical? What if the economy of power is not closed but admits
of excess, pointless expenditure, etc? What happens if, rather than
seeing power as that for which there is no exteriority (viz.
"resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to
power" 95), one conceives power qua intelligibility as itself
conditioned and conditional in every instance."
These are very interesting points, but could you unpack a few of them
a little further? In particular, while I understand your point about
the problems inherent in any mystical, transcendental, catch-all
meta-term, what do you have in mind when you refer to the asymmetries
of power and "targets?" Can you give me an illustrative "concrete"
example of excess or pointless expenditure?
jc
Los Alamitos, CA, 2800 miles from where I should be
------------------
