I'd like to answer to the questions and comments Joe Cronin and
Thomas Diez made.
Well first of all, I don't see in Foucault some kind of
"technological determinist" (at least if you keep the sense of the
expression). For me the notion of technology in a Foucaultian context
signifies two things: first of all a certain regularity, a certain
mode of doing things, a very close relation to knowledge, in a way he
extents the signification of the notion beyond the sphere of object
to subject: the way they are governed and the way they govern
themselves.
The second aspect is the autonomy of technologies (and here is the
main problem with "determination" at least in a very strict and
kausal meaning). Foucault shows that the same technology can be used
in very different social and historical contexts (that't why he
things that we can learn something from the Greeks), discipline is
not a result or determined by capitalism but can be used in "real
socialism" as well. What he is after is not determination but their
relative autonomy and their historical relation (e.g. capitalism and
discipline).
What concerns the question Thomas was posing, Alexandre already
pointed to a main reference to answer it: Discipline is not
government, but discipline is a way of government... For me Foucault
changed his view on discipline.In the early seventies discipline was
the main power techniques he centered on (against the discourse on
rights). Later he saw that discipline is not enough (and here I think
it is getting interesting), that he has to take into account the will
of the people, their relation to themselves (what he called
technologies of the self) and that this relation can be a field of
power techniques as well (which means the question is no longer one
of the disciplined subject but one of the subject that is governed by
it own "free will"). Here I think he joins with the discussion on
hegemony by Gramsci and life conduct by Weber...
So - to answer your question - discipline is not the same as
government....
Thomas
------------------
Thomas Diez made.
Well first of all, I don't see in Foucault some kind of
"technological determinist" (at least if you keep the sense of the
expression). For me the notion of technology in a Foucaultian context
signifies two things: first of all a certain regularity, a certain
mode of doing things, a very close relation to knowledge, in a way he
extents the signification of the notion beyond the sphere of object
to subject: the way they are governed and the way they govern
themselves.
The second aspect is the autonomy of technologies (and here is the
main problem with "determination" at least in a very strict and
kausal meaning). Foucault shows that the same technology can be used
in very different social and historical contexts (that't why he
things that we can learn something from the Greeks), discipline is
not a result or determined by capitalism but can be used in "real
socialism" as well. What he is after is not determination but their
relative autonomy and their historical relation (e.g. capitalism and
discipline).
What concerns the question Thomas was posing, Alexandre already
pointed to a main reference to answer it: Discipline is not
government, but discipline is a way of government... For me Foucault
changed his view on discipline.In the early seventies discipline was
the main power techniques he centered on (against the discourse on
rights). Later he saw that discipline is not enough (and here I think
it is getting interesting), that he has to take into account the will
of the people, their relation to themselves (what he called
technologies of the self) and that this relation can be a field of
power techniques as well (which means the question is no longer one
of the disciplined subject but one of the subject that is governed by
it own "free will"). Here I think he joins with the discussion on
hegemony by Gramsci and life conduct by Weber...
So - to answer your question - discipline is not the same as
government....
Thomas
------------------