malgosia writes:
<stuff deleted>
>But what interests me in this
>case is, so to speak, the internal politics of impotence -- where
>in fact one do _not_ have the power to perform any significant
>actions, and yet feels called upon to declare "support".
I wonder if this doesn't have more to do with 'singing up the self'
(signing?/ sometimes sighing)
than with an internal politics of impotence. I'm thinking here of
Foucault's implied theory of the subject as expressed in the 'Author
Function' (What is an author?) paper. I wonder if this might be seen as a
way of addressing the Other in ways that produce the self, providing an
ethical locus for the self, by which the 'I' can say: 'I don't like/agree
with/would not do myself what that person/regime is doing to those people
over there.'
If this is the case, then I express my *support* as part of my
boundary-making processes that produce me as an historical individual. This
is predicated on a notion that my 'self' is produced as a symptom of my
defining practices - which is defensibly one of Foucault's aproaches to
subjectivity implicit in the Author Function paper. By situating the
subject within a history, both the subject's *individual uniqueness* and a
provisional/shifting/but nonetheless present foundation for future action
can coexist. This, in my view also addresses the actor/agent dichotomy.
Thanks for having the patience to clarify your concerns - I enjoy your posts
Jerry Everard
ANU Canberra, Australia