Whether capitalists ever intend to do anything is one question; I
think that one has almost certainly misunderstood the word "intend" if
one doubts that they do sometimes intend to do things.
Whether there is a direct relation between what they intend to do and
what they in fact do is a second question; it seems clear that
sometimes capitalists intend to pay someone a compliment, and soon
find that they have inadvertantly insulted them; hence there is no
such "direct relation."
Whether there is a direct relationship between what they intend to do
and what in fact happens is a third question. Since I have never
heard anyone argue that capitalists are so powerful that there is a
direct relationship between what they intend to make happen and what
actually happens, I won't try to argue against it.
Steve
>
> 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
>
think that one has almost certainly misunderstood the word "intend" if
one doubts that they do sometimes intend to do things.
Whether there is a direct relation between what they intend to do and
what they in fact do is a second question; it seems clear that
sometimes capitalists intend to pay someone a compliment, and soon
find that they have inadvertantly insulted them; hence there is no
such "direct relation."
Whether there is a direct relationship between what they intend to do
and what in fact happens is a third question. Since I have never
heard anyone argue that capitalists are so powerful that there is a
direct relationship between what they intend to make happen and what
actually happens, I won't try to argue against it.
Steve
>
> 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
>