>
> 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.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
By progressive domination I do not have in mind the sort of inevitable,
hopeful progress indicative of liberalism. I simply mean that Foucualt states
quite clearly in Discipline and Punish that human beings became the targets of forms of power that were increasingly rational, individuating, discrete,
insidious and pervasive. He does accept that liberal society is marked by more "rational" techniques, without accepting that such rational techniques are
a sign of greater human rationality (they are more "rational" because they flow from a view of human rationality that liberalism believes is the progress of
human reason). Such forms of power did indeed, from Foucault's
perspective, develop over time in liberal socitites as they were appropriated,
modified, borrowed and transformed for a host of purposes within a host of
power relations. This is clearly one of Foucualt's major points in D & P, that
the tactics of discipline and surveillance found in the prison extended
themselves throughout the social body, some in much the form they could be
found in the prison, and many in forms representative of their unique purposes
in other power relations. Foucualt clearly states that the tactics of
\punishment and discipline changed form the pre-liberal era to the liberal
era. Foucualt would not call this change "progress", as in better, but he
would certainly call it a drastic change. By progressive I only mean a
drastic change, and that such change continued in its transformation in
liberal societies ( I am putting no normative value on the term progressive).
By "first and foremost" I am suggesting that Foucault's motivation
for his works was an obvious sympathy for the human condition in contemporary
liberal societies. I am not suggesting that he is the first to critique liberal society, or that he is the best at such critique. The feeling that the type of power found in liberal society is intolerable, oppressive and dominating
clearly flows through Foucualt's texts. Foucualt finds such power,
responsible for the destruction of individuality and freedom, as indicative of
the human condition in liberal society, particularly for such individuals as
gays, lesbians, people of color, the insane, those on the margins of social
acceptability. There is no doubt, despite your claims to the contrary, that
Foucualt's political project was designed to find ways in which individuals
can become, in some small way, human beings who create aspects of their own
subjectivities as free, autonomous human beings, even as it is admitted that
such a task is unlikely given the pervasive nature of power (see Foucault on
resistance, transgression, aestheics of the self). Foucualt, I would argue, is first and foremost a philosopher of the human condition (not the only one to
be sure), and he is secondly an historian, who uses historical evidence as
the
tools to illuminate his larger philosophical critique of contemporary liberal societies (his philosophical/political stance on liberalism is the binding
force of his works). He admits as much in several interviews, where he states that his historical works are works of fiction designed to illuminate his
philosophical and political positions (See James Miller's 'The Passion of
Foucault' for a candid admission by Foucault).
My motivation for writing the initial post was to suggest that there is a large degree of coherence in Foucualt's work, if one accepts that Foucualt's
project was primarily philosophical and political, rather than as an historian
offering discrete and disconnected accounts of history. That is, to see the
forest, one must be willing to see through the trees.
Greg Coolidge
Univ, Cal., Riverside
> 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.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
By progressive domination I do not have in mind the sort of inevitable,
hopeful progress indicative of liberalism. I simply mean that Foucualt states
quite clearly in Discipline and Punish that human beings became the targets of forms of power that were increasingly rational, individuating, discrete,
insidious and pervasive. He does accept that liberal society is marked by more "rational" techniques, without accepting that such rational techniques are
a sign of greater human rationality (they are more "rational" because they flow from a view of human rationality that liberalism believes is the progress of
human reason). Such forms of power did indeed, from Foucault's
perspective, develop over time in liberal socitites as they were appropriated,
modified, borrowed and transformed for a host of purposes within a host of
power relations. This is clearly one of Foucualt's major points in D & P, that
the tactics of discipline and surveillance found in the prison extended
themselves throughout the social body, some in much the form they could be
found in the prison, and many in forms representative of their unique purposes
in other power relations. Foucualt clearly states that the tactics of
\punishment and discipline changed form the pre-liberal era to the liberal
era. Foucualt would not call this change "progress", as in better, but he
would certainly call it a drastic change. By progressive I only mean a
drastic change, and that such change continued in its transformation in
liberal societies ( I am putting no normative value on the term progressive).
By "first and foremost" I am suggesting that Foucault's motivation
for his works was an obvious sympathy for the human condition in contemporary
liberal societies. I am not suggesting that he is the first to critique liberal society, or that he is the best at such critique. The feeling that the type of power found in liberal society is intolerable, oppressive and dominating
clearly flows through Foucualt's texts. Foucualt finds such power,
responsible for the destruction of individuality and freedom, as indicative of
the human condition in liberal society, particularly for such individuals as
gays, lesbians, people of color, the insane, those on the margins of social
acceptability. There is no doubt, despite your claims to the contrary, that
Foucualt's political project was designed to find ways in which individuals
can become, in some small way, human beings who create aspects of their own
subjectivities as free, autonomous human beings, even as it is admitted that
such a task is unlikely given the pervasive nature of power (see Foucault on
resistance, transgression, aestheics of the self). Foucualt, I would argue, is first and foremost a philosopher of the human condition (not the only one to
be sure), and he is secondly an historian, who uses historical evidence as
the
tools to illuminate his larger philosophical critique of contemporary liberal societies (his philosophical/political stance on liberalism is the binding
force of his works). He admits as much in several interviews, where he states that his historical works are works of fiction designed to illuminate his
philosophical and political positions (See James Miller's 'The Passion of
Foucault' for a candid admission by Foucault).
My motivation for writing the initial post was to suggest that there is a large degree of coherence in Foucualt's work, if one accepts that Foucualt's
project was primarily philosophical and political, rather than as an historian
offering discrete and disconnected accounts of history. That is, to see the
forest, one must be willing to see through the trees.
Greg Coolidge
Univ, Cal., Riverside