Dear all,
I am not a member of this list, and not well acquianted with the work of
Foucault.
On behalf of a student of me who is about to finish his Master thesis I am
interested in what you, Foucault-specialists, think of the following
analysis of the model of power that might be present in *Discipline and
Punish*, *The History of Sexuality, Vol. I*, and *Power/Knowledge*.
The analysis is based upon the idea of *supervenience*, as developed by
such analytical philosophers as Kim, Davidson, and, especially Philip
Pettit. The idea is that we can think of properties and regularities as
existing on different levels. The properties that exist on the subvening
level are said to *realize* the properties existing on the supervening
level, in such a way that two different worlds that have the same
properties on the subvening level are bound to have the same properties on
the supervening level. The standard example is the elasticity of an eraser
that is realized by the molecular structure of the eraser. In addition we
can think of the regularities that exist on the supervening level as being
*causally relevant* to what is to happen on the subvening level, in such a
way that the supervening regularity will *program for* a particular
configuration of subvening properties that will suffice to *cause* what is
to happen on that level. The standard example is the heating of the water
in a bottle that will program for one or another particle to have
sufficient velocity to break the glass.
And now for Foucault: the basic idea of the analysis is (1) that power
relations supervene on relations of force, and that power structures
supervene on power relations; (2) that power strategies supervene on power
tactics, and that power deployments supervene on power strategies; and (3)
that power deployments, power strategies and power tactics are the names
Foucault gives to the causal relevance of power structures and power
relations, in such a way that e.g. a power strategy is the *programming
for* a particular configuration of subvening properties (i.e. of particular
power relations) that will suffice to cause certain actions.
What do you think? Does this sound sensible? interesting? obvious? vacuous?
Any reaction is highly appreciated.
Since I am not on this list, please respond (at least) to the email-address
given below.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr. Jan Bransen - Department of Philosophy - Utrecht University |
| P.O. Box 80.126 Phone: + 31 30 532090 |
| 3508 TC Utrecht Fax: + 31 30 532816 |
| The Netherlands Email: Jan.Bransen@xxxxxxxxxxx |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
I am not a member of this list, and not well acquianted with the work of
Foucault.
On behalf of a student of me who is about to finish his Master thesis I am
interested in what you, Foucault-specialists, think of the following
analysis of the model of power that might be present in *Discipline and
Punish*, *The History of Sexuality, Vol. I*, and *Power/Knowledge*.
The analysis is based upon the idea of *supervenience*, as developed by
such analytical philosophers as Kim, Davidson, and, especially Philip
Pettit. The idea is that we can think of properties and regularities as
existing on different levels. The properties that exist on the subvening
level are said to *realize* the properties existing on the supervening
level, in such a way that two different worlds that have the same
properties on the subvening level are bound to have the same properties on
the supervening level. The standard example is the elasticity of an eraser
that is realized by the molecular structure of the eraser. In addition we
can think of the regularities that exist on the supervening level as being
*causally relevant* to what is to happen on the subvening level, in such a
way that the supervening regularity will *program for* a particular
configuration of subvening properties that will suffice to *cause* what is
to happen on that level. The standard example is the heating of the water
in a bottle that will program for one or another particle to have
sufficient velocity to break the glass.
And now for Foucault: the basic idea of the analysis is (1) that power
relations supervene on relations of force, and that power structures
supervene on power relations; (2) that power strategies supervene on power
tactics, and that power deployments supervene on power strategies; and (3)
that power deployments, power strategies and power tactics are the names
Foucault gives to the causal relevance of power structures and power
relations, in such a way that e.g. a power strategy is the *programming
for* a particular configuration of subvening properties (i.e. of particular
power relations) that will suffice to cause certain actions.
What do you think? Does this sound sensible? interesting? obvious? vacuous?
Any reaction is highly appreciated.
Since I am not on this list, please respond (at least) to the email-address
given below.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr. Jan Bransen - Department of Philosophy - Utrecht University |
| P.O. Box 80.126 Phone: + 31 30 532090 |
| 3508 TC Utrecht Fax: + 31 30 532816 |
| The Netherlands Email: Jan.Bransen@xxxxxxxxxxx |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+