hi folks.
I wonder if the following quote (from _The History of Sexuality, Vol. I_)
is relevant to the question of Foucault's relationship to "marginal" or
"unauthorized" discourses (it's one of my favourite quotes):
"...it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together. And
for this very reason, we must conceive discourse as a series of
discontinuous segments whose tactical function is neither uniform nor
stable. To be more precise, we must *NOT* [my emphasis] imagine a world
of discourse divided between accepted discourse and excluded discourse,
or between the dominant discourse and the dominated one; but as a
multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various
strategies.... Discourses are not once and for all subservient to power
or raised up against it, any more than silences are. We must make
allowance for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be
both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a
stumbling-block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an
opposing strategy.... There is not, on the one side, a discourse of
power, and opposite it, another discourse that runs counter to it.
Discourses are tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of
force relations; there can exist different and even contradictory
discourses within the same strategy; they can, on the contrary, circulate
without changing their form from one strategy to another, opposing
strategy" (100-102 - Vintage edition, 1990)
I think this quote is crucial to F's discourse analyses. Here he's quite
clearly defined discourses not an definitive of politics or political
struggle, but as elements within political struggle. Discourses operate
as elements within strategies, not as strategies themselves. (Although
there is some ambiguity here - does he mean "discourse as series of
propositions" or "discourse as regulated action"?) Here again, the notion
of the "apparatus" from "The Confession of the Flesh" is pertinent. So, I
don't think F would argue that resistance to power can only come from
outside of the discourses that structure and enforce it - if only because
any given discourse can operate at different moments as *both* enforcer
*and* resistance-tactic.
Now, I confess to not having read any dC. In fact, I'd never even heard
of him until he was brought to this list. But I'd venture to suggest
that, given what has been presented of his thought, the criticisms he
makes of F are in fact points that F already takes account of. I think an
important question might be: how can it be that a "narrative" (in dC's
sense) can come to play an oppositional role? How is it that a story can
have a kind of "resistance-effect" (my term - I apologize)? By being
taken up into a resistance struggle which can at one moment deploy a
marginal discourse and at another moment deploy a dominant discourse in
its own interests without in the least compromising its status as a
resistance struggle.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. If not, I'm sure to hear about it.
Bye for now.
malcolm
I wonder if the following quote (from _The History of Sexuality, Vol. I_)
is relevant to the question of Foucault's relationship to "marginal" or
"unauthorized" discourses (it's one of my favourite quotes):
"...it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together. And
for this very reason, we must conceive discourse as a series of
discontinuous segments whose tactical function is neither uniform nor
stable. To be more precise, we must *NOT* [my emphasis] imagine a world
of discourse divided between accepted discourse and excluded discourse,
or between the dominant discourse and the dominated one; but as a
multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various
strategies.... Discourses are not once and for all subservient to power
or raised up against it, any more than silences are. We must make
allowance for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be
both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a
stumbling-block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an
opposing strategy.... There is not, on the one side, a discourse of
power, and opposite it, another discourse that runs counter to it.
Discourses are tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of
force relations; there can exist different and even contradictory
discourses within the same strategy; they can, on the contrary, circulate
without changing their form from one strategy to another, opposing
strategy" (100-102 - Vintage edition, 1990)
I think this quote is crucial to F's discourse analyses. Here he's quite
clearly defined discourses not an definitive of politics or political
struggle, but as elements within political struggle. Discourses operate
as elements within strategies, not as strategies themselves. (Although
there is some ambiguity here - does he mean "discourse as series of
propositions" or "discourse as regulated action"?) Here again, the notion
of the "apparatus" from "The Confession of the Flesh" is pertinent. So, I
don't think F would argue that resistance to power can only come from
outside of the discourses that structure and enforce it - if only because
any given discourse can operate at different moments as *both* enforcer
*and* resistance-tactic.
Now, I confess to not having read any dC. In fact, I'd never even heard
of him until he was brought to this list. But I'd venture to suggest
that, given what has been presented of his thought, the criticisms he
makes of F are in fact points that F already takes account of. I think an
important question might be: how can it be that a "narrative" (in dC's
sense) can come to play an oppositional role? How is it that a story can
have a kind of "resistance-effect" (my term - I apologize)? By being
taken up into a resistance struggle which can at one moment deploy a
marginal discourse and at another moment deploy a dominant discourse in
its own interests without in the least compromising its status as a
resistance struggle.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. If not, I'm sure to hear about it.
Bye for now.
malcolm