On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Samuel Lawrence Binkley wrote:
>
> I want to ask: Is Foucault's history of the modernization of the west
> really so different from a Marxist or Western Marxist history of the
> evolution of productive relations?
>
> The answer is YES, and the reason is in the difference between the
> exploitation of the body and the discipline (exercise) of the body.
Dear Samuel,
My answer is both YES and NO. Hence it depends on the meaning behind the
word "difference". Although my readings does not allow me to
comment on the Western Marxists in general, I may discuss the relation of
Marx and Foucault.
Currently I am working on a paper about the conception of Man in the
writings of Marx and Foucault. I think although they are approaching the
Man by using completely different methods (indeed with some
incommensurable concepts) what we learn from them is complementary.
Complementary both in the sense of the method we may use to understand who
we are and in the sense of the knowledge on who we are.
Two concepts may be helpful: the social individual of Marx and the
individual body of Foucault. The social individual is being shaped by
the general franework of the mode of production in which he lives. Hence
man makes man. The effects of this framework on the social individual
cannot be analyzed only by concentrating on the school, factory, asylum etc.
This is the first leg of the knowledge on man. The other leg is the
individual body that is rendered docile through a reconciliation process
working under the same mode of production Marx describes. But this is by
no means to say that Foucault follows Marx's own method of analysis.
Hence the two analysis are sonewhat irreconcilable. Instead of following
the positivist assumption of the Unity of the Method, we may apply
different means to reach the knowledge of Ourselves who is not a unity
but a divided collection of properties that is gained under Capitalism,
under Factory, under the Knowledge we produce etc.
So the two history is both different and the same. They are about the
same man but their approaches follow different paths.
I wrote this text in ten minutes and I realize that there are some
problematic points. But nevertheless it is worthy of being discussed. I
promise to write a more comprehensive text on my approach in a couple of
days. Hence I am still reading, thinking and waiting for comments.
Koray.
>
> I want to ask: Is Foucault's history of the modernization of the west
> really so different from a Marxist or Western Marxist history of the
> evolution of productive relations?
>
> The answer is YES, and the reason is in the difference between the
> exploitation of the body and the discipline (exercise) of the body.
Dear Samuel,
My answer is both YES and NO. Hence it depends on the meaning behind the
word "difference". Although my readings does not allow me to
comment on the Western Marxists in general, I may discuss the relation of
Marx and Foucault.
Currently I am working on a paper about the conception of Man in the
writings of Marx and Foucault. I think although they are approaching the
Man by using completely different methods (indeed with some
incommensurable concepts) what we learn from them is complementary.
Complementary both in the sense of the method we may use to understand who
we are and in the sense of the knowledge on who we are.
Two concepts may be helpful: the social individual of Marx and the
individual body of Foucault. The social individual is being shaped by
the general franework of the mode of production in which he lives. Hence
man makes man. The effects of this framework on the social individual
cannot be analyzed only by concentrating on the school, factory, asylum etc.
This is the first leg of the knowledge on man. The other leg is the
individual body that is rendered docile through a reconciliation process
working under the same mode of production Marx describes. But this is by
no means to say that Foucault follows Marx's own method of analysis.
Hence the two analysis are sonewhat irreconcilable. Instead of following
the positivist assumption of the Unity of the Method, we may apply
different means to reach the knowledge of Ourselves who is not a unity
but a divided collection of properties that is gained under Capitalism,
under Factory, under the Knowledge we produce etc.
So the two history is both different and the same. They are about the
same man but their approaches follow different paths.
I wrote this text in ten minutes and I realize that there are some
problematic points. But nevertheless it is worthy of being discussed. I
promise to write a more comprehensive text on my approach in a couple of
days. Hence I am still reading, thinking and waiting for comments.
Koray.