good point:) they're similar in that sense as well.
I guess I read that interview too, if that's the Berkeley interview you're talking about.
I haven't seen his new book by the way, the one about the US having imperial attempts, I wonder he mentions about Hardt and Negri:) Have you seen it by any chance?
Actually another historical sociologist, Maier, who recently wrote a book on the same subject ("Among Empires") doesn't mention about them too, as far as I know. Well, I'm being cynical. It's a little too different perspective I guess, so it would probably be unfair to expect any Hardt and Negri citation anyway, but I'm becoming rather suspicious about historical sociologists!
----- Original Message ----
From: Arthur Zinault <arthur.zinault@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:54:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] historical sociology, anyone?
And what's even more ironic is that in a recent interview I saw on the web
with Mann, Mann said that before he wrote a book he went on what he called
"looting and pillaging raids" through other social sciences to marshal
evidence for his stuff. Sounds fun -- also sounds like what Foucault did!
But I guess Mann never "looted and pillaged" Foucault's stuff! Hard to
believe. Maybe Mann is jealous of our fave French power theorist and doesn't
want to acknowledge some competition? ;)
On 5/15/07, Ilgin Yorukoglu <ilgin_y@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for this reply, Arthur,
> Yes, Foucault's constant failure in citations are pretty well-known, and
> he's often criticized (sometimes pretty harshly, too, I must say) for this
> reason in many circles. But my concern is, specifically, that I find Mann's
> ideas very close to Foucault's, from his different typologies of
> power,including the "diffused power" to the "means" of power in order to
> construct a sort of an "unconscious" "normalization", and of course, also,
> the extension of Durkheim in emphasizing the ways in which normative
> discourses create communities and understandings, i.e. knowledges. To me,
> there are many other points where they follow extremely similar lines.Also,
> of course he's writing right after Foucault had become an important figure,
> so it's impossible that Mann was not aware of the latter.
> But thanks a lot again for reminding me of Russell's work, that's so true.
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Arthur Zinault <arthur.zinault@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:12:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] historical sociology, anyone?
> Yes, Michael Mann is considered by many to be the best living power
> since his _Sources of Social Power_, and you're right,t here's no Foucault
> in it. In fact, in a book I have called _Anatomy of Power_, which is a
> critical reader of Mann's works on power relations, the index of this 400
> page book records only two mentions of Foucault -- not by Mann, but by
> authors briefly mentioning Foucault in some relation to Mann. Just two
> mentions in over 400 pages.
> On the other hand, however, Foucault was very picky in who he chose to
> quote. For example, Bertrad Russell's _Power_ was never, ever mentioned by
> Foucault as far as I'm aware, yet t was one of the pre-eminent studis of
> power before the 1950s, an ambitious project in which Russell proposed to
> for "power" what Marx had done for economics. 9And by most accounts failed
> but nonetheless left the world with some enlightening insights anyway.)
> As well, much of the classical anarchist tradition dealt EXACTLY with the
> distribution of power in socity and its finest was and is a critical
> methodology of social power relations, yet Foucault barely refers to it
> explicitly, either. German anarchosyndicalist Rudolf Rocker's
> _Nationalism_and_Culture_,a prescient anti-racist and anti-nationalist
> from the 1920s, posits the "will to power" as a primary impetus behind
> of humanity's current matrix of power relations. ANd you'llf ind other
> examples in Emma Goldman,w ho also lectured and wrote often about
> But these and others were never mentioned by Foucault as far as I'm aware.
> Likewise, Giorgio Agamben, after Foucault's death, found it remarkable
> while Foucault wrote about prisons, mental hospitals, and even war towards
> the end of his life, that he never discussed the institution of
> camps or death camps. Agamben obviously sought to remedy this with
> of Auschwitz," et. al.
> So, Mann doesn't refer to Foucault, which seems odd, but Foucault also
> didn't reference a lot of folks that to me seem a bit odd, too. But then
> again, one can't cite everything under the sun all the time. However, I do
> agree Mann's almost complete, if not willful, ignorance of Foucault seems
> Arthur Zinault
> On 5/9/07, Ilgin Yorukoglu <ilgin_y@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Greetings everyone,
> > I believe Foucault has been very influential in such works on state
> > formation, punishment etc. Yet, many times he is not cited (I have in
> > Michael Mann's hundreds of pg. work on the source of social power, in
> > he doesn't cite Foucault even once), or other times, I believe, he's
> > misinterpreted and criticized based on this misinterpretation.
> > Any suggestion, idea, thought will be very much appreciated.
> > Many thanks beforehand,
> > Ilgin
> Foucault-L mailing list
> GPS? Comic books?
> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
> Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.