From: "Andrew Herman" <ah7301r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:11:24 -0600
I too would also be interested in what Foucault has to say about the
technology of the interview. Also, where can the Miller and Rose article on
governing economic life be found?
>From: Kirsten Harley <HARLEY.KIRSTEN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: technology of interview + the self
>Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000, 1:12 AM
> hi list,
> i've a question relating to my (sociology honours) work and some comments on
> the individual/subject discussion.
> i'm doing a project on individuals' "name collections" - pre-birth and baby
> names but also the lifetime accumulation of given names, surnames, nicknames,
> second language names, titles, pseudonyms, intimate names, etc - which i'm
> planning to consider in the space provided between Foucault's writings on the
> self (both against the idea of the unified self and his more positive work on
> practices of the self) and governmentality.
> i intend to use interviews to attempt to collect (probably incomplete)
> of name collections/naming/associated practices and am planning to include
> discussion of the interview as research technology (the kinds of things i'm
> thinking about for now include possible connections between the interview as
> research tool and as media tool, notions of expertise and memory
> required/implied/produced by interview research, etc).
> can anyone point me in the direction of any Foucaultian work that discusses
> technology of the interview?
> (all I've seen is brief reference to use of the interview as a regulatory
> mechanism in workplace management, in Miller and Rose's article, "Governing
> economic life").
> now, some brief thoughts on questions of the individual/subject raised by Sean
> (and Ted).
> i'm still a long way from coming to grips with (or even reading) much of
> Foucault's work, but my understanding is that Foucault's treatment of the
> individual/subject as inseparable from, not transcendent to, power/discourse
> does not render it non-existent. Ted, when you say that individual and
> are "social meanings" are you saying that different (including liberal)
> of the individual/subject (attempt to) constitute it in different ways,
> including as prediscursive? (hence Foucault's refusal to begin with an a
> theory of the subject - as in "the ethic of care for the self as a practice of
> freedom" (ecspf)). can 'social meanings' be responsible for their own
> i have also wondered about Foucault's idea of the relationship between the
> individual/self and the subject. it seems to me that he does not uniformly
> equate the two, but that different subjects emerge in individuals' relations
> with their selves and others, eg
> 'government of individualization', a form of power which 'applies itself to
> immediate everyday life' and 'categorizes the individual, marks him (sic) by
> own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on
> him which he must recognize and which others have to recognize in him. It is
> form of power which makes individuals subjects' (Foucault 1983, 212 from 'The
> subject and power')
> 'You do not have towards yourself the same kind of relationships when you
> constitute yourself as a political subject who goes and votes or speaks up in
> meeting, and when you try to fulfill your desires in a sexual relationship.
> There are no doubt some relationships and some interferences between these
> different kinds of subjects but we are not in the presence of the same kind of
> subject. In each case, we play, we establish with one's self some different
> form of relationship.' (Foucault 1994, 10 from ecspf)
> enough from me for now,
> seeya, Kirsten