Joe:
these are all excellent comments. let me recap:
I was making the argument that Foucault's analysis of power as a
constitutive disciplinary relation surpasses marx's conception of economic
exploitation because Marx assumes a prior substance (labour force) upon
which capitalist relations operate in the mode of appropriation/alienation.
Though Foucault's history of modern power makes generous use of the
development and spread of productive relations (factory system, economic
division of labour), his use is fundamentally different because he stresses
the EXERCISE of the body, not the EXPLOITATION of labour force. What's the
difference? exploitation is teleological: it wants accumulation, exercise
is therapeutic, it inscribes life. (though I may not have posted all that,
that's the ultimate objective of my critique).
You summarized 3 points
The first claim is that what characterizes modern discursive
practices found in the disciplines is an "economistic
rationality".
(Yes, this makes Foucault look like Marx.... )
The second claim, which you hit upon in your analysis, is
that the body is not only a subjugated body, but it is
productive. What the body produces are a number of
sign-effects, which are taken up, "colonized," appropriated,
and distributed to other discplines.
I don't think the sign effects are appropriated within disciplinary
relations: they are inscribed. It is only later, on an entirely different
level of power relations that labour force, as an inscribed sign system, is
appropriated.
The third relation is that in Foucault's case, teh
'micro-physics of power' operate through the "politcal
technologies of the body." ....... They can be viewed, in modern
disciplinary
societies, as forms of capital. They are used to produce
and distribute sign-effects, which are taken up and
colonized or appropriated by newer, and often more general
strategies.
I think it is important to remember that these are two different levels on
which power oprerates. The relations of exploitation Marx analyses are the
"Marco-physics" (a term foucault never uses, though he could have) as
opposed to the "microphysics" of disciplinary power.
So, I agree entirely with what you have to say about
Foucault and docility/usefulness, etc. But I disagree with
your reading of Marx.
Hmm.... I think Marx says in the Paris manuscripts (and maintains
throughout) that social labour is the species essence of mankind.... not
that "essence" has to be a dirty word, but it certainly implies a bodily
"substance" within a relation the coercion of bodies that Foucault would
never admit.
as per Rusch and Kirchheimer: my use of them (and Foucault's) is only to
establish the distinction between a history of a political economy of the
body as one of exploitation vs one as exercise.
sam
these are all excellent comments. let me recap:
I was making the argument that Foucault's analysis of power as a
constitutive disciplinary relation surpasses marx's conception of economic
exploitation because Marx assumes a prior substance (labour force) upon
which capitalist relations operate in the mode of appropriation/alienation.
Though Foucault's history of modern power makes generous use of the
development and spread of productive relations (factory system, economic
division of labour), his use is fundamentally different because he stresses
the EXERCISE of the body, not the EXPLOITATION of labour force. What's the
difference? exploitation is teleological: it wants accumulation, exercise
is therapeutic, it inscribes life. (though I may not have posted all that,
that's the ultimate objective of my critique).
You summarized 3 points
The first claim is that what characterizes modern discursive
practices found in the disciplines is an "economistic
rationality".
(Yes, this makes Foucault look like Marx.... )
The second claim, which you hit upon in your analysis, is
that the body is not only a subjugated body, but it is
productive. What the body produces are a number of
sign-effects, which are taken up, "colonized," appropriated,
and distributed to other discplines.
I don't think the sign effects are appropriated within disciplinary
relations: they are inscribed. It is only later, on an entirely different
level of power relations that labour force, as an inscribed sign system, is
appropriated.
The third relation is that in Foucault's case, teh
'micro-physics of power' operate through the "politcal
technologies of the body." ....... They can be viewed, in modern
disciplinary
societies, as forms of capital. They are used to produce
and distribute sign-effects, which are taken up and
colonized or appropriated by newer, and often more general
strategies.
I think it is important to remember that these are two different levels on
which power oprerates. The relations of exploitation Marx analyses are the
"Marco-physics" (a term foucault never uses, though he could have) as
opposed to the "microphysics" of disciplinary power.
So, I agree entirely with what you have to say about
Foucault and docility/usefulness, etc. But I disagree with
your reading of Marx.
Hmm.... I think Marx says in the Paris manuscripts (and maintains
throughout) that social labour is the species essence of mankind.... not
that "essence" has to be a dirty word, but it certainly implies a bodily
"substance" within a relation the coercion of bodies that Foucault would
never admit.
as per Rusch and Kirchheimer: my use of them (and Foucault's) is only to
establish the distinction between a history of a political economy of the
body as one of exploitation vs one as exercise.
sam