Comrades:
for anyone who has participated in an on/off discussion on Foucault and
ethnography: Michel De Certeau's Parctice of Everyday LIfe has an
interesting chapter on Foucault and Bourdieu. It's rather confusing and
possibly contains mistakes or possibly questionable translations. his
concern is with the way in which Foucault explains the rise of a single
apparatus of a technology of power to a position of prominence at the
expense of others which are scattered, relegated to margins or otherwise
shuffled off the the background. He seems to strictly differentiate
between "ideologies" and "procedures", and attributes to discipline the
function of hte latter..... (He repeatedly uses the term "ideology" where
"discourse" would seem the proper term). Foucault apparently has been
inadequate in developing an explanation of how certain sets of practices
develop and depose and establish hegemony over others. More importantly,
he has not fully explained how deposed practices persist in an antagonistic
manner at the margins of dominant disciplinary formations.....
This is confusing....Has de Certeau read the same Foucault? I'll post
more as i read along.
sb
for anyone who has participated in an on/off discussion on Foucault and
ethnography: Michel De Certeau's Parctice of Everyday LIfe has an
interesting chapter on Foucault and Bourdieu. It's rather confusing and
possibly contains mistakes or possibly questionable translations. his
concern is with the way in which Foucault explains the rise of a single
apparatus of a technology of power to a position of prominence at the
expense of others which are scattered, relegated to margins or otherwise
shuffled off the the background. He seems to strictly differentiate
between "ideologies" and "procedures", and attributes to discipline the
function of hte latter..... (He repeatedly uses the term "ideology" where
"discourse" would seem the proper term). Foucault apparently has been
inadequate in developing an explanation of how certain sets of practices
develop and depose and establish hegemony over others. More importantly,
he has not fully explained how deposed practices persist in an antagonistic
manner at the margins of dominant disciplinary formations.....
This is confusing....Has de Certeau read the same Foucault? I'll post
more as i read along.
sb