I think we are all ( I include my own last message here) getting a little too
involved in reading the minds of capitalists, people who perform
clitoridectomies, etc. I don't personally know anyone in either group, and
became involved in somewhat unproductive second guessing for rhetorical
purposes. However, in order to believe that capitalists must necessarily WANT to
cause poverty because they DO cause poverty, we must believe in a kind of direct
relationship between intend and result which I find somewhat naive. I am also
not convinced that Foucault believed in this type of direct and unmediated
relationship between intent and result, or the direct and unmediated agancy this
implies. This does not, however, leave out all possibilites for a much more
limited view of agancy. The idea that bad or repressive results come only out of
bad intentions is a comfortable one, and that lets all of us off the hook,
because as we know, we do not have bad intentions. It is more pessimistic, but
in my opinion, more realistic as well as more in line with Foucault's thought to
assume that oppressive or horrific results can come out of what appear to be
neutral or benign intents. That is why a careful look at the relationship
between language and power is so important.
Dory
involved in reading the minds of capitalists, people who perform
clitoridectomies, etc. I don't personally know anyone in either group, and
became involved in somewhat unproductive second guessing for rhetorical
purposes. However, in order to believe that capitalists must necessarily WANT to
cause poverty because they DO cause poverty, we must believe in a kind of direct
relationship between intend and result which I find somewhat naive. I am also
not convinced that Foucault believed in this type of direct and unmediated
relationship between intent and result, or the direct and unmediated agancy this
implies. This does not, however, leave out all possibilites for a much more
limited view of agancy. The idea that bad or repressive results come only out of
bad intentions is a comfortable one, and that lets all of us off the hook,
because as we know, we do not have bad intentions. It is more pessimistic, but
in my opinion, more realistic as well as more in line with Foucault's thought to
assume that oppressive or horrific results can come out of what appear to be
neutral or benign intents. That is why a careful look at the relationship
between language and power is so important.
Dory