First a point about intentionally causing poverty.
And then a point about how not to read Foucault.
> >I strongly doubt that anyone makes economic policy with the conscious intention
> >of causing more poverty.
>
> Really? You actually doubt this? I would give it an even stronger spin and
> say that some people not only make economic policy with the intention of
> causing more poverty, but also intentionally make legislative policy with
> the intention of eradicating policy by eradicating groups of people.
>
This important question is easily settled. One has only to read a
textbook on "supply-side" macroeconomic policy. There one will find
numerous exhortations to increase "labour mobility," which can very
roughly be defined as the intensity of competition for jobs, on the
grounds that this is the only way to solve the problem of
"stagflation," thought to be caused by Keynesianism (which inflated
wages, thus discouraging production and raising prices). Reading
further, one will find a series of suggestions as to how to go about
increasing labour mobility: cut welfare payments, discourage trade
unionism, cut or eliminate unemployment insurance payments, lower or
abolish the minimum wage, and generally deregulate hiring practices
("labour standards").
If this political program (which is "intentionally" being implemented
in almost every country in the world today) does not constitute a
deliberate attempt to increase poverty, I don't know what would.
Of course, capitalists want to increase poverty, not just for the fun
of it (although many DO take pleasure in seeing "lazy bums" get their
comeuppance), but in order to increase labour mobility (desperation
for low wage jobs), and thereby to increase profits ("the health of
the nation's economy," etc.). There may be an argument about whether
one OUGHT to increase poverty in order to increase profits.
But there can be no doubt as to their _intentions_. The idea that
increasing the number of poor people, and the intensity of their
poverty, should be one of the GOALS of government economic policy was
explicitly formulated and promoted by supply-side economists in the
1970's, and has -- with growing confidence and ferocity -- been
pursued by most (if not all) governments ever since.
On the question of intentions and agency: supply-side economics is a
"program" in Foucault's sense, that is, a set of "calculated, reasoned
prescriptions in terms of which institutions are meant to be
reorganised, spaces arranged, behaviours regulated" (cf. Impossible
Prison). Foucault's views on power relations (which are always
relations between agents, and which almost always make reference to
the co-ordination of the action of other, third-party agents) are
unintelligible if one lacks a concept of agency.
The latter point strikes me as quite obvious, but for the sake of
those who interpret Foucault as a "post-structuralist" and
post-structuralism as entailing a repudiation of appeals to agency, I
present two quotations which seem to settle the philological
question (about what M.F. said) unambiguously:
"Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they
are free" (Subject and Power).
The exercise of power is "always a way of acting upon an acting
subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable
of action" (Subject and Power).
I find it a little strange how easily assumptions, arising (I suppose)
out of the concerns of literary theorists, about what is entailed by
post-modernism or post-structuralism (denying agency; relativism;
anti-Marxism, etc.) are unilaterally _read into_ Foucault's texts, no
matter how demonstrably faulty such readings are.
I know that there is a certain indeterminacy of meaning in a
philosophical (or other) text. But if I repeatedly say that X, and
never deny that X, then it is a demonstrably faulty reading of my text
to say that I don't believe that X. It is no less faulty just because
you can show that Judith Butler doesn't believe that X.
Foucault states bluntly that he embraces the historical materialist
view that history should be understood in terms of the dynamics of the
forces and relations of production. He reapeatedly insists that
several statements are, in as emphatic a tone as you like, TRUE (and
that other statements are false). He states that the present epoch
is "modern" (not post-modern). He claims that we live in capitalist
societies with a capitalist ruling class, which exploits a working
class (on purpose). And, most trivially perhaps, he believes that
human beings are agents, and so are capable of exercising power and
resisting it. If Baudrillard, or some other post-modernist disagrees,
then that is irrelevant to the question of what Foucault wrote and
believed. (Of course, anyone who wants to DISAGREE with Foucault on
any of the above points is hereby encouraged to do so).
Steve D
darcy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And then a point about how not to read Foucault.
> >I strongly doubt that anyone makes economic policy with the conscious intention
> >of causing more poverty.
>
> Really? You actually doubt this? I would give it an even stronger spin and
> say that some people not only make economic policy with the intention of
> causing more poverty, but also intentionally make legislative policy with
> the intention of eradicating policy by eradicating groups of people.
>
This important question is easily settled. One has only to read a
textbook on "supply-side" macroeconomic policy. There one will find
numerous exhortations to increase "labour mobility," which can very
roughly be defined as the intensity of competition for jobs, on the
grounds that this is the only way to solve the problem of
"stagflation," thought to be caused by Keynesianism (which inflated
wages, thus discouraging production and raising prices). Reading
further, one will find a series of suggestions as to how to go about
increasing labour mobility: cut welfare payments, discourage trade
unionism, cut or eliminate unemployment insurance payments, lower or
abolish the minimum wage, and generally deregulate hiring practices
("labour standards").
If this political program (which is "intentionally" being implemented
in almost every country in the world today) does not constitute a
deliberate attempt to increase poverty, I don't know what would.
Of course, capitalists want to increase poverty, not just for the fun
of it (although many DO take pleasure in seeing "lazy bums" get their
comeuppance), but in order to increase labour mobility (desperation
for low wage jobs), and thereby to increase profits ("the health of
the nation's economy," etc.). There may be an argument about whether
one OUGHT to increase poverty in order to increase profits.
But there can be no doubt as to their _intentions_. The idea that
increasing the number of poor people, and the intensity of their
poverty, should be one of the GOALS of government economic policy was
explicitly formulated and promoted by supply-side economists in the
1970's, and has -- with growing confidence and ferocity -- been
pursued by most (if not all) governments ever since.
On the question of intentions and agency: supply-side economics is a
"program" in Foucault's sense, that is, a set of "calculated, reasoned
prescriptions in terms of which institutions are meant to be
reorganised, spaces arranged, behaviours regulated" (cf. Impossible
Prison). Foucault's views on power relations (which are always
relations between agents, and which almost always make reference to
the co-ordination of the action of other, third-party agents) are
unintelligible if one lacks a concept of agency.
The latter point strikes me as quite obvious, but for the sake of
those who interpret Foucault as a "post-structuralist" and
post-structuralism as entailing a repudiation of appeals to agency, I
present two quotations which seem to settle the philological
question (about what M.F. said) unambiguously:
"Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they
are free" (Subject and Power).
The exercise of power is "always a way of acting upon an acting
subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable
of action" (Subject and Power).
I find it a little strange how easily assumptions, arising (I suppose)
out of the concerns of literary theorists, about what is entailed by
post-modernism or post-structuralism (denying agency; relativism;
anti-Marxism, etc.) are unilaterally _read into_ Foucault's texts, no
matter how demonstrably faulty such readings are.
I know that there is a certain indeterminacy of meaning in a
philosophical (or other) text. But if I repeatedly say that X, and
never deny that X, then it is a demonstrably faulty reading of my text
to say that I don't believe that X. It is no less faulty just because
you can show that Judith Butler doesn't believe that X.
Foucault states bluntly that he embraces the historical materialist
view that history should be understood in terms of the dynamics of the
forces and relations of production. He reapeatedly insists that
several statements are, in as emphatic a tone as you like, TRUE (and
that other statements are false). He states that the present epoch
is "modern" (not post-modern). He claims that we live in capitalist
societies with a capitalist ruling class, which exploits a working
class (on purpose). And, most trivially perhaps, he believes that
human beings are agents, and so are capable of exercising power and
resisting it. If Baudrillard, or some other post-modernist disagrees,
then that is irrelevant to the question of what Foucault wrote and
believed. (Of course, anyone who wants to DISAGREE with Foucault on
any of the above points is hereby encouraged to do so).
Steve D
darcy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx