At 12:59 PM 4/18/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
> 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 ... this human condition is
>one of progressive domination,
this makes him so weberian, no? or, better "weberian"! i do not find him
at all into "progress" of any kind, whether humanist or antihumanist,
socioevolutionary or power-evolutionist. increasing domination? no, i think
he argued that domination and power and resistance exist in many
forms/modalities; sometimes configured in such and such a way and sometimes
in these other ways. he never gave a yardstick by which to measure
"increasing" domination -- nor "decreasing" domination or power; afterall
thats why the marxists and feminists and other humanist-enlightenment rooted
folks got so uptight with what he had to say. if one were an optimist and
not even a liberal one could reread F. and say/see this putative progressive
domination as a story of putative progressive "freedom" (or whatever it is
you hold to be the antithesis of domination) --- and precisely because power
is enabling in the same instance as it is constraining and regulative.
indeed liberal history says as much.
that f. "admits" as much is rather imposing, no? was he forced to "admit"
"it"? (and who forced him? how?) or was it just something that slipped out
of his pen? or a strategic attempt to totalize and anachronistically
establish coherence? what coherence did he envision of his work five days
later? what all this suggests once again that memory is of the moment. and
that the reconstruction of coherence is less afterthe "fact" than fiction,
meaning something being in the process of becoming/fabricating.
ok, so yes there is something we can recognize as foucault, and more than
just the name on the cover. and, indeed no one has denied that. but, to then
make him
>... first and
>foremost, a philosopher of the human condition in modern liberal societies?
i must protest. "first and foremost"? like any human, he was first and
foremost just any other human. why make him or anyone first and foremost
into anything? isnot it contextual? a perspective? and motivated by some
implicit agenda? or was he he first and foremost phrench? or gay? or bald?
or 20th centuryist? or son of his mother?
>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?
>
I cannot guess his purposes. so many! why make a laundry list? one thing
that seemed to egg him on though is to think about the nature of the social
realities in which we live and have lived. but, many share that impulse.
your question might be interepreted as suggesting that he sought to find a
way to escape power/domination. I don't think so. also, your question
implies again this idea of increasing domination. I would disagree with
idea again.
let me ask a question, what is it that disturbed you about the critique of
his apparent attempt to create a unified, totalized, natural idea as
governing his life-work?
quetzil.
>
>
> Greg Coolidge
> Univ. of Calif, Riverside
> gcoolidg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> 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 ... this human condition is
>one of progressive domination,
this makes him so weberian, no? or, better "weberian"! i do not find him
at all into "progress" of any kind, whether humanist or antihumanist,
socioevolutionary or power-evolutionist. increasing domination? no, i think
he argued that domination and power and resistance exist in many
forms/modalities; sometimes configured in such and such a way and sometimes
in these other ways. he never gave a yardstick by which to measure
"increasing" domination -- nor "decreasing" domination or power; afterall
thats why the marxists and feminists and other humanist-enlightenment rooted
folks got so uptight with what he had to say. if one were an optimist and
not even a liberal one could reread F. and say/see this putative progressive
domination as a story of putative progressive "freedom" (or whatever it is
you hold to be the antithesis of domination) --- and precisely because power
is enabling in the same instance as it is constraining and regulative.
indeed liberal history says as much.
that f. "admits" as much is rather imposing, no? was he forced to "admit"
"it"? (and who forced him? how?) or was it just something that slipped out
of his pen? or a strategic attempt to totalize and anachronistically
establish coherence? what coherence did he envision of his work five days
later? what all this suggests once again that memory is of the moment. and
that the reconstruction of coherence is less afterthe "fact" than fiction,
meaning something being in the process of becoming/fabricating.
ok, so yes there is something we can recognize as foucault, and more than
just the name on the cover. and, indeed no one has denied that. but, to then
make him
>... first and
>foremost, a philosopher of the human condition in modern liberal societies?
i must protest. "first and foremost"? like any human, he was first and
foremost just any other human. why make him or anyone first and foremost
into anything? isnot it contextual? a perspective? and motivated by some
implicit agenda? or was he he first and foremost phrench? or gay? or bald?
or 20th centuryist? or son of his mother?
>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?
>
I cannot guess his purposes. so many! why make a laundry list? one thing
that seemed to egg him on though is to think about the nature of the social
realities in which we live and have lived. but, many share that impulse.
your question might be interepreted as suggesting that he sought to find a
way to escape power/domination. I don't think so. also, your question
implies again this idea of increasing domination. I would disagree with
idea again.
let me ask a question, what is it that disturbed you about the critique of
his apparent attempt to create a unified, totalized, natural idea as
governing his life-work?
quetzil.
>
>
> Greg Coolidge
> Univ. of Calif, Riverside
> gcoolidg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>