In article duffett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landis Duffett) writes:
>Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:16:42 -0600
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: duffett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landis Duffett)
>Subject: Re: Totalization
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>The identification of Foucault's conceptual/methodological application as
>>being one of totalization is interesting. The complaint is a reasonable
>>one, and something that should be discussed. There is no doubt that
>>certain works by Foucault resemble a totalization of some sort,
>>_vis-a-vis_ their application of concepts and method.
I am currently looking at "The Subject and Power" and am finding the form of
his writing to be a totalizing technology in and of itself.
I think F was very conscious of the power of textual semiotics
as a means by which he was able to manipulate opinion, in addition to the
actual content.
The reader is embroiled and put in a situation where there is
no option but to agree. He has a disarming tendency to say such things as
'everyone knows these things' and to connect disparate 'facts' in such a way
as to maintain a position which is reliant upon his obvious erudition. I feel
that heuses very adroitly the legitimizing structures of an academic tradition
which he is ostensibly overturning.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Tom
>Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:16:42 -0600
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: duffett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landis Duffett)
>Subject: Re: Totalization
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>The identification of Foucault's conceptual/methodological application as
>>being one of totalization is interesting. The complaint is a reasonable
>>one, and something that should be discussed. There is no doubt that
>>certain works by Foucault resemble a totalization of some sort,
>>_vis-a-vis_ their application of concepts and method.
I am currently looking at "The Subject and Power" and am finding the form of
his writing to be a totalizing technology in and of itself.
I think F was very conscious of the power of textual semiotics
as a means by which he was able to manipulate opinion, in addition to the
actual content.
The reader is embroiled and put in a situation where there is
no option but to agree. He has a disarming tendency to say such things as
'everyone knows these things' and to connect disparate 'facts' in such a way
as to maintain a position which is reliant upon his obvious erudition. I feel
that heuses very adroitly the legitimizing structures of an academic tradition
which he is ostensibly overturning.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Tom