>
> Gregory - if all power is equally dominative, then how do you explain "On
> the Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom"? Some forms of
> power operate in the service of freedom ("freedom is precisely what must
> be exercised - the only guarantee of freedom is the practice of freedom"
> is how I think the quote goes). Other operate in the service of
> domination. Power and domination are *NOT* the same thing at all. Not all
> forms of subjectivation are dominative - or, if you insist on calling it
> dominative, then not all forms of domination are bad.
>
> Also, I fail to see why political identification has anything to do with
> choice. I didn't choose to be an apparently gun-totin' extremist
> gay-supremacist any more than some people chose to be wishy-washy
> liberals.
>
> Finally, thanks quetzil - at least somebody understands what I'm talking
> about.
>
> fight the power.
> malcolm
>
>
I shall try to answer in typical Foucaultian circularity. Freedom,
if we mean by freedom, resistance to power and domination, is itself
a form of power, in that the effects of one's resistance aid in the
subjectification/construction of other subjects, as well as one's own subjectivity. I think in the service of freedom, Foucualt means that some power
results in resistances, that is, some power aids in the service of freedom/resistance. I was also trying to suggest that in actuality, at the level of
political practice, Foucualt does not really accept that all power is
equally dominating. Foucualt's earlier theoretical accounts of power
in 'The History of Sexuality', and 'The Subject and Power', seem to
suggest that all power is productive, that is, subjectifying (constructs
subjects). Foucualt, in his later interviews, particularly, still
accepts the initial premise that all power subjectifies in some way, but that
not all power is equally subjectifying/dominating. Some power dominates/
subjectifies in ways that are unavoidable, yet not patently intolerable
of oppressive (standard socializing forces I guess), while others are
subjectfying/dominating to the point of being totalizing, stifling and oppressive. There is a great tendency in Foucualt's theorizing to abstract terms
to such a degree that they become virtually synonymous at the level of theory. Power and domination are such terms, if one is not careful to keep
Foucualt's political concerns in mind when reading Foucualt's theories, which are designed to illuminate and further such political concerns. So really
Malcolm, I agree with your statement that in actuality Foucualt does not
accept that all power is equally dominating, if dominating at all, but that
Foucualt does offer many theoretical descriptions of power, which would
lead
one to believe that all power is equally dominating. my concern in writing
the initial post was to make a distinction between Foucualt as a theorist, and
Foucault as a political actor, I think there are decided differences between
these two aspects of Foucault. The problem is lies in sifting through
Foucualt's entire project (philosophical, theoretical, political), and
piecing together what Foucualt's project really was (if one is at all
interested with the meaning of Foucualt's project, as I am).
> Gregory - if all power is equally dominative, then how do you explain "On
> the Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom"? Some forms of
> power operate in the service of freedom ("freedom is precisely what must
> be exercised - the only guarantee of freedom is the practice of freedom"
> is how I think the quote goes). Other operate in the service of
> domination. Power and domination are *NOT* the same thing at all. Not all
> forms of subjectivation are dominative - or, if you insist on calling it
> dominative, then not all forms of domination are bad.
>
> Also, I fail to see why political identification has anything to do with
> choice. I didn't choose to be an apparently gun-totin' extremist
> gay-supremacist any more than some people chose to be wishy-washy
> liberals.
>
> Finally, thanks quetzil - at least somebody understands what I'm talking
> about.
>
> fight the power.
> malcolm
>
>
I shall try to answer in typical Foucaultian circularity. Freedom,
if we mean by freedom, resistance to power and domination, is itself
a form of power, in that the effects of one's resistance aid in the
subjectification/construction of other subjects, as well as one's own subjectivity. I think in the service of freedom, Foucualt means that some power
results in resistances, that is, some power aids in the service of freedom/resistance. I was also trying to suggest that in actuality, at the level of
political practice, Foucualt does not really accept that all power is
equally dominating. Foucualt's earlier theoretical accounts of power
in 'The History of Sexuality', and 'The Subject and Power', seem to
suggest that all power is productive, that is, subjectifying (constructs
subjects). Foucualt, in his later interviews, particularly, still
accepts the initial premise that all power subjectifies in some way, but that
not all power is equally subjectifying/dominating. Some power dominates/
subjectifies in ways that are unavoidable, yet not patently intolerable
of oppressive (standard socializing forces I guess), while others are
subjectfying/dominating to the point of being totalizing, stifling and oppressive. There is a great tendency in Foucualt's theorizing to abstract terms
to such a degree that they become virtually synonymous at the level of theory. Power and domination are such terms, if one is not careful to keep
Foucualt's political concerns in mind when reading Foucualt's theories, which are designed to illuminate and further such political concerns. So really
Malcolm, I agree with your statement that in actuality Foucualt does not
accept that all power is equally dominating, if dominating at all, but that
Foucualt does offer many theoretical descriptions of power, which would
lead
one to believe that all power is equally dominating. my concern in writing
the initial post was to make a distinction between Foucualt as a theorist, and
Foucault as a political actor, I think there are decided differences between
these two aspects of Foucault. The problem is lies in sifting through
Foucualt's entire project (philosophical, theoretical, political), and
piecing together what Foucualt's project really was (if one is at all
interested with the meaning of Foucualt's project, as I am).