Greg,
I agree with everything you say except that Foucault is
interested in a 'micro-analysis'. Genealogy begins a the
micro level, but Focuault's analysis is an "ascending one" -
he is still interested in forms of power which achieve a
general set od effects. Largely, I htink that marx himself
is misread; he also claims that a study of power realtions
must be local and specific - I am especially referring to
Marx's materialsit method set out in The German Ideology,
but present throughout his later writings. Marx is
interested an emprical, materialist appproach to history -
this does not preclude a "general" analysis. Marx is also
critical of Hegel and others for thinking of history as a
process independent of living human beings - a "global"
analysis, if you will, which lies at the heart of F's
critique of the "repressive hypothesis." The Marxian ( as
opposed to 'Marxist') point is that a general analysis is
essential to understanding the specific effects and
functions of power/knowledge in modern Euro culture. The
better elements of F's genealogies follow from his Marxian
science - why else would F go to great pains to establish
himself as materialist, an empiricist, and a critical
historian, if he had no 'scientific' basis for his research?
If this basis is not Marxian, what is it?
-- Joe Cronin, Thomas More College
------------------
I agree with everything you say except that Foucault is
interested in a 'micro-analysis'. Genealogy begins a the
micro level, but Focuault's analysis is an "ascending one" -
he is still interested in forms of power which achieve a
general set od effects. Largely, I htink that marx himself
is misread; he also claims that a study of power realtions
must be local and specific - I am especially referring to
Marx's materialsit method set out in The German Ideology,
but present throughout his later writings. Marx is
interested an emprical, materialist appproach to history -
this does not preclude a "general" analysis. Marx is also
critical of Hegel and others for thinking of history as a
process independent of living human beings - a "global"
analysis, if you will, which lies at the heart of F's
critique of the "repressive hypothesis." The Marxian ( as
opposed to 'Marxist') point is that a general analysis is
essential to understanding the specific effects and
functions of power/knowledge in modern Euro culture. The
better elements of F's genealogies follow from his Marxian
science - why else would F go to great pains to establish
himself as materialist, an empiricist, and a critical
historian, if he had no 'scientific' basis for his research?
If this basis is not Marxian, what is it?
-- Joe Cronin, Thomas More College
------------------