>
> 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
>
The terms ideology and hegemony would be quite troublesome for Foucault when
discussing the workings of power. Both are Marxist-tinged terms speaking
to some over-arching discourse that the mass of society functions under
or subscribes to. The generality of such an analysis would simply not do
for Foucault. For example, one could say the dominant/hegemonic ideology of
western societies is liberalism, and then define its tenets, in order to
suggest that the ideology of liberalism explains the workings of power in
the big picture. However, a more detailed, and Foucualtian, analysis
would demand that "liberalism" be broken down to represent its various
forms, its offshhots, its varying degrees of acceptance on a host of
common principles, that is, its specificity in particular societies, as held by
particular groups for particular purposes, resulting in particular effects
(there is no such thing as a liberal, Foucualt would argue, there are rather
many different aspects of liberal thought held by many different individuals-
liberalisms would be better). For example, the liberalism of Utilitarians,
as represented by the penal reformers in D &P, is quite different than the
liberalism of more Kantian inspired liberals, thus, resulting in practices
which are quite different, based upon a slightly different view of human
nature, human reason, human psychology. The terms ideology and hegemony
reflect far too crude a level of analysis for Foucualt. He admits that there
are dominant discourses and practices, but one must be very careful to not
generalize to such a degree that the specificity of discourses and practices
are overlooked. I beleive that Foucualt would argue that much of what is
labled as hegemonic ideology, is, in reality, the conceptual construction
of an individual who is looking for a degree of generality that simply doesn't
exist in actuality. The 'ideology of capitalism', what is that exactly?,
Foucualt would ask, which capitialists are we talking about?, free-
traders?, protectionists?, social democrats?. What aspects of Capitialist
'ideology' is accepted by which capitialists, resulting in what practices, and
to which effects?
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Calif., Riverside
Dept. of Political Science
> 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
>
The terms ideology and hegemony would be quite troublesome for Foucault when
discussing the workings of power. Both are Marxist-tinged terms speaking
to some over-arching discourse that the mass of society functions under
or subscribes to. The generality of such an analysis would simply not do
for Foucault. For example, one could say the dominant/hegemonic ideology of
western societies is liberalism, and then define its tenets, in order to
suggest that the ideology of liberalism explains the workings of power in
the big picture. However, a more detailed, and Foucualtian, analysis
would demand that "liberalism" be broken down to represent its various
forms, its offshhots, its varying degrees of acceptance on a host of
common principles, that is, its specificity in particular societies, as held by
particular groups for particular purposes, resulting in particular effects
(there is no such thing as a liberal, Foucualt would argue, there are rather
many different aspects of liberal thought held by many different individuals-
liberalisms would be better). For example, the liberalism of Utilitarians,
as represented by the penal reformers in D &P, is quite different than the
liberalism of more Kantian inspired liberals, thus, resulting in practices
which are quite different, based upon a slightly different view of human
nature, human reason, human psychology. The terms ideology and hegemony
reflect far too crude a level of analysis for Foucualt. He admits that there
are dominant discourses and practices, but one must be very careful to not
generalize to such a degree that the specificity of discourses and practices
are overlooked. I beleive that Foucualt would argue that much of what is
labled as hegemonic ideology, is, in reality, the conceptual construction
of an individual who is looking for a degree of generality that simply doesn't
exist in actuality. The 'ideology of capitalism', what is that exactly?,
Foucualt would ask, which capitialists are we talking about?, free-
traders?, protectionists?, social democrats?. What aspects of Capitialist
'ideology' is accepted by which capitialists, resulting in what practices, and
to which effects?
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Calif., Riverside
Dept. of Political Science