>
> Joe Cronin and others have brought up the essay titled "The Subject &
> Power" (available in the Dreyfus & Rabinow book) several times here
> lately. E.g., Cronin notes:
> "...n regard to the "totalizing"
> conception of his own authorship he gives in "The Subject
> and Power" and in a number of later interviews."
>
> I think this is accurate to say that Foucault attempted to "totalize" or
> find some underlying unity in his work-- which of course is the way to
> construct "a work" --ironically at odds with his own method of reading
> others. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the essay titled "The
> Subject and Power" is actually two distinct essays glued together by the
> editors. One was written in English for the audience of the study by
> Dreyfus and Rabinow. It is accessible and somewhat simplifying. The
> other was written quite a bit earlier in French for a different
> audience. As you read, you'll notice that the essay suddenly gets more
> dense and the tone and topic shifts noticably at that point.
> Thus even this text which tries to construct a "work" is itself a
> construction by the editors.
>
> --Erick Heroux
>
Still, can't we agree that there is some degree of coherence in
Foucault's project, as he admits in 'The Subject and Power'. In a certain
sense all of Foucualt's works were centered on the subjectification of
human beings in modern liberal societies (genealogies), or the changes in
scientific and medical discourses(archeologies of the human sciences), which
allowed, or enabled, such subjectification to occur. Foucualt was not
interested in madness, medicine, psychiatry, order (classification), prisons,
sexuality,as discrete matters of historical interest. Such topics were
of interest since they illuminated the human condition within the modern age.
For Foucualt, this human condition is one of progressive domination, where
human beings became the objects of scientific knowledge and discourse, and such
knowledge was put into practice in an attempt to "improve", transform or
subjectify human beings. Can't we agree that Foucualt's project contains this
thread which runs through it as its binding force, as its reason for being,
as a cry in the wilderness against, what Foucualt insists, is the intolerable
domination of human beings in modern liberal societies? Let us not confuse
Foucualt's distaste for totalizing theory (theory which is both descriptive and
prescriptive), with coherence of purpose, or general guiding theme, in one's
project. To have a guiding purpose is not to offer totalizing theory, the
type of theory which attempts to describe reality and to also offer moral
and political guidance. A guiding purpose, or reason for being, also does not
mean that one cannot change one's approach, ideas, methods, beliefs, etc. I
think in the case of Foucualt, there is an absesne of totalizing theory, but
surely not an absence of coherent purpose or theme. Is Foucualt not, first and
foremost, a philosopher of the human condition in modern liberal societies?
Is the elucidation of this human condition, and its possible resistance,
not Foucualt's purpose, or meson, for offering his various historical and
theoretical works?
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Calif, Riverside
gcoolidg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Joe Cronin and others have brought up the essay titled "The Subject &
> Power" (available in the Dreyfus & Rabinow book) several times here
> lately. E.g., Cronin notes:
> "...n regard to the "totalizing"
> conception of his own authorship he gives in "The Subject
> and Power" and in a number of later interviews."
>
> I think this is accurate to say that Foucault attempted to "totalize" or
> find some underlying unity in his work-- which of course is the way to
> construct "a work" --ironically at odds with his own method of reading
> others. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the essay titled "The
> Subject and Power" is actually two distinct essays glued together by the
> editors. One was written in English for the audience of the study by
> Dreyfus and Rabinow. It is accessible and somewhat simplifying. The
> other was written quite a bit earlier in French for a different
> audience. As you read, you'll notice that the essay suddenly gets more
> dense and the tone and topic shifts noticably at that point.
> Thus even this text which tries to construct a "work" is itself a
> construction by the editors.
>
> --Erick Heroux
>
Still, can't we agree that there is some degree of coherence in
Foucault's project, as he admits in 'The Subject and Power'. In a certain
sense all of Foucualt's works were centered on the subjectification of
human beings in modern liberal societies (genealogies), or the changes in
scientific and medical discourses(archeologies of the human sciences), which
allowed, or enabled, such subjectification to occur. Foucualt was not
interested in madness, medicine, psychiatry, order (classification), prisons,
sexuality,as discrete matters of historical interest. Such topics were
of interest since they illuminated the human condition within the modern age.
For Foucualt, this human condition is one of progressive domination, where
human beings became the objects of scientific knowledge and discourse, and such
knowledge was put into practice in an attempt to "improve", transform or
subjectify human beings. Can't we agree that Foucualt's project contains this
thread which runs through it as its binding force, as its reason for being,
as a cry in the wilderness against, what Foucualt insists, is the intolerable
domination of human beings in modern liberal societies? Let us not confuse
Foucualt's distaste for totalizing theory (theory which is both descriptive and
prescriptive), with coherence of purpose, or general guiding theme, in one's
project. To have a guiding purpose is not to offer totalizing theory, the
type of theory which attempts to describe reality and to also offer moral
and political guidance. A guiding purpose, or reason for being, also does not
mean that one cannot change one's approach, ideas, methods, beliefs, etc. I
think in the case of Foucualt, there is an absesne of totalizing theory, but
surely not an absence of coherent purpose or theme. Is Foucualt not, first and
foremost, a philosopher of the human condition in modern liberal societies?
Is the elucidation of this human condition, and its possible resistance,
not Foucualt's purpose, or meson, for offering his various historical and
theoretical works?
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Calif, Riverside
gcoolidg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx