On Fri, 17 May 1996 sbinkley@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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?
This is a friendly reading of de Certea:
I think de Certeau's objective is to salvage the subject
>from dissolution within the structuralist framework. His
focus is more on the everyday practice of the common
"man" which allows him to describe micro-practices such
as "ripping-off" as a tactic of subversion, rather than
studying institutions (as Foucault does).
Ithink de Certeau critiques Foucault's one-sided
analysis of institutions and mechanisms of repression
because it does not allow the study of oppositional practices that
take place within the panopticon, for example.
Although resistance/power can be viewed as coupled in F's
theorization,F seldom provides us with examples of
non-disciplinary forms of power. F does talk about
micro-practices and the individualizing aspect of power. But
I think he is more interested to map the relationship of those
practices in the larger network of power.
I have a problem De Certeau's critique that F
does not consider marginal discourses (storytelling etc..) if
one considers what Foucault's objectives were in his larger project.
F was only interested in those discourses that
in some way had the influence to establish "truth." Why would
he be interested in marginal discouses ?
divakar
> 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?
This is a friendly reading of de Certea:
I think de Certeau's objective is to salvage the subject
>from dissolution within the structuralist framework. His
focus is more on the everyday practice of the common
"man" which allows him to describe micro-practices such
as "ripping-off" as a tactic of subversion, rather than
studying institutions (as Foucault does).
Ithink de Certeau critiques Foucault's one-sided
analysis of institutions and mechanisms of repression
because it does not allow the study of oppositional practices that
take place within the panopticon, for example.
Although resistance/power can be viewed as coupled in F's
theorization,F seldom provides us with examples of
non-disciplinary forms of power. F does talk about
micro-practices and the individualizing aspect of power. But
I think he is more interested to map the relationship of those
practices in the larger network of power.
I have a problem De Certeau's critique that F
does not consider marginal discourses (storytelling etc..) if
one considers what Foucault's objectives were in his larger project.
F was only interested in those discourses that
in some way had the influence to establish "truth." Why would
he be interested in marginal discouses ?
divakar