On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Quetzil Castaneda wrote:
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:03:03 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Quetzil Castaneda <Quetzil@xxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: domination vs power; colonialisms
>
> At 08:47 PM 4/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
> malcolm and van leunnen, i do not want to intervene between all your
> smooching -- i aint such a touchy feelly kinda guy:) -- but, can i add from
> just outside the embraces;) i think that as you indicate (and i agree) that
> foucault is talking about the "human condition" in a very particular way and
> history and indeed then it is okay to say (i argue) this phrase here (in
> relation to foucault) so long as it is understood that he WAS NOT talking
> about all the world but the "euroindividual" and "humanity"-- he is
> primarily critiquing the eurocentric construction of human/modernity and so
> on (enlightenment and blah blah blah). thus instead of avoiding the term as
> you have suggested malcolm perhaps we need to put it in quotes both
> literally and discursively.
>
> I have a question regarding the distinction between power in a good and bad
> sense. I don't buy it generally nor in that it is present "in" foucault.
>
> I dont believe that there is such a separation in foucault's texts of power
> in the microphysical/disciplinary and in the sense of domination (bad
> power). i sense the return use of domination and the typing of kinds of
> power, authorities, force, domination as weberian, not foucaultian. [I am
> anxious to hear me get corrected on that assertion.] but beyond that issue
> of what the "real" M.F. said or not, can we ascribe a value to a certain
> kind of power?
>
> q./
>
>
>
I think what you are saying jibes with malcolm's idea when it comes to
the valuelessness of power (neither good nor evil).
As far as the real M.F., his take on the "human condition" does seem to be
eurocentric, as if that were a real problem.
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:03:03 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Quetzil Castaneda <Quetzil@xxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: domination vs power; colonialisms
>
> At 08:47 PM 4/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
> malcolm and van leunnen, i do not want to intervene between all your
> smooching -- i aint such a touchy feelly kinda guy:) -- but, can i add from
> just outside the embraces;) i think that as you indicate (and i agree) that
> foucault is talking about the "human condition" in a very particular way and
> history and indeed then it is okay to say (i argue) this phrase here (in
> relation to foucault) so long as it is understood that he WAS NOT talking
> about all the world but the "euroindividual" and "humanity"-- he is
> primarily critiquing the eurocentric construction of human/modernity and so
> on (enlightenment and blah blah blah). thus instead of avoiding the term as
> you have suggested malcolm perhaps we need to put it in quotes both
> literally and discursively.
>
> I have a question regarding the distinction between power in a good and bad
> sense. I don't buy it generally nor in that it is present "in" foucault.
>
> I dont believe that there is such a separation in foucault's texts of power
> in the microphysical/disciplinary and in the sense of domination (bad
> power). i sense the return use of domination and the typing of kinds of
> power, authorities, force, domination as weberian, not foucaultian. [I am
> anxious to hear me get corrected on that assertion.] but beyond that issue
> of what the "real" M.F. said or not, can we ascribe a value to a certain
> kind of power?
>
> q./
>
>
>
I think what you are saying jibes with malcolm's idea when it comes to
the valuelessness of power (neither good nor evil).
As far as the real M.F., his take on the "human condition" does seem to be
eurocentric, as if that were a real problem.