+
From: Asher Haig <ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:20:54 -0500
Reading through many criticisms of Foucault's cryptonormativity, I'm finding
myself rather frustrated. This, however, is not as it might seem. I find
myself not with a concern regarding some trap in which Foucault has put
himself, but instead with the way that Foucault's statements on resistance
have been considered.
The basis for the accusations of cryptonormativity seem to come from the
assumption that Foucault says that we should resist. As far as I can tell
(perhaps it is simply that in my reading I've missed it) Foucault never
makes such a statement. Instead, it seems that Foucault proposes that this
resistance is ever-present:
a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case: resistances that
are possible, necessary, improbable; others that are spontaneous, savage,
solitary, concerted, rampant, or violent; still others that are quick to
compromise, interested , or sacrificial; by definition, they can only exist
in the strategic field of power relations. But this does not mean that they
are only a reaction or rebound, forming with respect to the basic domination
an underside that is in the end always passive, doomed to perpetual defeat.
(HS 96)
The question that seems troubling to me is rather, why is that resistance is
ever-present? How do we know that there is a plurality of resistances? If
"wherever there is power there is resistance" (Not sure if that quote is
exact or where the source is) then the question clearly seems to turn to how
and where we can resist rather than why, but how is it that we can assume
that foundation exists?
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greenhill Debate Dartmouth 2004
