>I have to admit that I have read quite a bit of Foucault's work, and I
>haven't seen anything in it that suggested to me that Foucault was a
>"philosopher who denies human agency," although I would concede that
>agency is not a concept that fits well into the agenda of _The Order
>of Things_. On the other hand, perhaps that is one reason why
>Foucault's thought shifts TOWARD a focus on agency (as it seems to me
>to do) starting with "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History."
>
>Steve.
It seems to me that Foucault doesn't wsant to deny agency but rather that
he wants to think of thinks for a change in terms other than aganecy. AK
is about looking at texts without looking at intent: how could they come
about, under what circumstances. This does not deny agency but puts it to
the side. What Foucault is interested in is how the possibilities are
limited for agents: what determines a set of possible actions for this
agent in this circumstance? THe action is never determined (see Subject
and Power, and Hoy's article in his Critical Reader of Foucault), but a set
of possible actions. THe agent, presumably, then acts in one of those ways
as s/he determines.
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Philosophy
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY. 40509