On Sun, 7 Jul 96 20:07:26 -0500, Rebecca Brown wrote:
>Jeff writes:
>"I think we have to have some real or true aspect of ourselves which power
>subverts in order for their to be any punch, meaning or use to the notion
>of power."
>
>At this point I am not prepared to respond to this claim directly, but I would
>like to suggest that taking this position amounts to much more than a
>modification of Foucault's arguments (or even a rejection of some of his claims
>coupled with an acceptance of others). To assume that there must exist some
>true aspect of ourselves that power subverts is to completely diverge with
>Foucualt's claims with respect to discourse, power, and sexuality. Moreover,
>this move simultaneously buys into precisely the liberal conception of power
>from which Foucault repeatedly attempted to distance himself, indeed overturn
>entirely.
I subscribe to that! The problem seems to me to be with 'true aspect' which always already
presupposes a power constellation. However, a weaker paraphrasing of what Jeff
said may be necessary to forbid power to become conceptually equal to God
(for only the concept of God allow for
creating something out of nothing). There most be something outside power, not "true", but
unformed relatively to the specific application of power, which power can target, and which
can be thereafter recoded as resistence. Insofar as the concept of power is relational, it is
rather meaningless without a target.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>Jeff writes:
>"I think we have to have some real or true aspect of ourselves which power
>subverts in order for their to be any punch, meaning or use to the notion
>of power."
>
>At this point I am not prepared to respond to this claim directly, but I would
>like to suggest that taking this position amounts to much more than a
>modification of Foucault's arguments (or even a rejection of some of his claims
>coupled with an acceptance of others). To assume that there must exist some
>true aspect of ourselves that power subverts is to completely diverge with
>Foucualt's claims with respect to discourse, power, and sexuality. Moreover,
>this move simultaneously buys into precisely the liberal conception of power
>from which Foucault repeatedly attempted to distance himself, indeed overturn
>entirely.
I subscribe to that! The problem seems to me to be with 'true aspect' which always already
presupposes a power constellation. However, a weaker paraphrasing of what Jeff
said may be necessary to forbid power to become conceptually equal to God
(for only the concept of God allow for
creating something out of nothing). There most be something outside power, not "true", but
unformed relatively to the specific application of power, which power can target, and which
can be thereafter recoded as resistence. Insofar as the concept of power is relational, it is
rather meaningless without a target.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------