What does everyone make of the statement:
"Although the universal juridicism of modern society seems to fix limits
on the exercise of power, its universally widespread panopticism enables
it to operate, on the *underside of the law,* a machinery both immense
and minute..."(DP 223)
Then what might this mean in connection with Michael Walzer's article on
"The politics of Michel Foucault?"
Where Walzer says:
"And so Foucault's radical abolitionism, if it is serious, is not
anarchist so much as nihilist."(Foucault Critical Reader page 61, ed. D.C.
Hoy)
Please keep in mind the first quote when responding, because it is in the
location of law counterposed against disciplline that I think this
problem emerges. Might there be a way to counterpose law and discipline,
that doesn't alienate the use of law for beneficial social change?
I am thinking along the lines of the use of "governmentality" except that
government is infused, through and through with the combination of law
and sovereignty.
thx
RB
"Although the universal juridicism of modern society seems to fix limits
on the exercise of power, its universally widespread panopticism enables
it to operate, on the *underside of the law,* a machinery both immense
and minute..."(DP 223)
Then what might this mean in connection with Michael Walzer's article on
"The politics of Michel Foucault?"
Where Walzer says:
"And so Foucault's radical abolitionism, if it is serious, is not
anarchist so much as nihilist."(Foucault Critical Reader page 61, ed. D.C.
Hoy)
Please keep in mind the first quote when responding, because it is in the
location of law counterposed against disciplline that I think this
problem emerges. Might there be a way to counterpose law and discipline,
that doesn't alienate the use of law for beneficial social change?
I am thinking along the lines of the use of "governmentality" except that
government is infused, through and through with the combination of law
and sovereignty.
thx
RB