Jeff wrote
>Take for example, the oft cited example of Gary, IN. in which the residents
>did not protest the air pollution until much later (decades) after other
>cities of similar backgrounds had protested. How can we understand the
>power at work here? Surely they had their desires and interests defined by
>the controlling steel factory. This follows perfectly well from a
>foucaultian analysis. But why should I care about this insatnce of power.
>The only reason for me to care is if it causes me some harm or subvverts
>some real interests that I might have: for example, the interest in working
>in a clean environment.
I notice a good amount of retorts like "Well, but why should I ..." or
"Yes, well, I still don't want to ... (for example - the desire to
change)" - I don't know how to respond to that.
But if I am pressed for a response , I would have to say, "you don't
have to". Foucault is clear that he is not giving us a set of
instructions or commands on how to live our lives or how to act (react)
in the world. So if you don't want to (to care, to change), that's
fine. As one proud Texan once instructed me, "Hey, man, it's a free
country" -
>the true
>self as a conglomeration of real interests which can be subverted by power
>configurations. It seems to me that everyone has such interest which might
>change slgithly in a cultural network (for example, an interest in working
>in a pollution free environement was not known by pre-industrial peoples).
>I am not sure how to answer your last question. If we say that the true
>self is a composite of real interests, then pretty much, everyone's
>interests would fall into the same general categories
My problem with this argument is that just how specific are you willing
to be when it comes to talking about these real interests ? Okay, I
grant you, one of my real interests is to live and I'm sure that's yours
as well. What if it turns out another one of my real interests is to
live in a country free of immigrants, or of gays and lesbians ? The
point I'm trying to make is that there are interests (very general ones)
that we all share and then there are specific ones that we don't not
share and most of the time it is specific ones that matter most in the
going-ons of our daily lives - and these are the ones we wage wars
(cultural and sometimes violent) over. The problem with "real interests"
is that if we get basic enough, sure - there is a shared "true"
interest, but then these interests are so basic, so obvious that it's
almost pointless to talk about them. However, if we get specific, we
find that interests (our conceptions of right and wrong, our views of
what constitute a good life, etc.) diverge, conflict. As for the
example of everyone's real interest in wanting to work in a pollution
free environment ... well, if only it were true - this world would a
much cleaner place than it is right now !!!
>But this plays into a false dichotomy (as I suggested before): why does
>realizing or admitting a true self mean that I have to be the same all the
>time. This is a static view of self. I think we should view the self as
>dynamic, as in potens, such as Aristotle or the Medievals did.
Okay. I'll buy that ... we pretty much agree on the conclusion (self as
dynamic, ever evolving, changing) - we just disagree on how we got
there - which is fine : true self that is constantly rewriting itself or
an ethos to be something other than who we are, to escape the regime of
the Same ... POtato, poTato.
> My problem
>with Foucault and other postmoderns that I have read is that the ignore
>anything between Kant and PLato...
Well, that's a little unfair. All the big shots of postmodernisms have
done things in that area. Half of Derrida's Grammatology is devoted to
Rousseau; a third of Dissemination to Plato; D has also written a study
of Condillac. Let's also not forget D's debate with Foucault on
Descartes and the place of Evil Genius within Descartes's discourse (kind
of hard to say, actually ... Descartes' discourse); Lacan has written
that marvelous thing on Kant avec Sade. Foucault's Order of Things
contains a great deal of materials on the Classical Period. De Man
devoted half of Allegory on Jean-Jacques and also did a fascinating
reading of the concept of Zero in Pascal's work. Jean-Luc Nancy wrote on
Descartes in Ego Sum. Luce Irigaray on Plato, and Deleuze has written
two excellent books on Spinoza and one book on Leibniz - in fact, Gilles
Deleuze's very first work (his dissertation I think) was on the good old
English empiricist David Hume of all people !!!
>And still I ask, why should I be different from before?
Absolutely no reason at all. This may sound trite - but if you don't
want to be different, don't. And if you do not find Foucault's
intellectual (even moral) ethos to be compelling ... well, okay ... try
to go look for something else instead. To put it simply, Michel is not
the boss of us ... and as Deleuze once said concerning A Thousand Plateau
(i'm paraphrasing here) - treat this book like a CD, if you don't like a
chapter, just skip to the next one and if you don't like the CD, just
push STOP.
Jason Lin
SFELMA@xxxxxxx
"Anna Freud was reaching maturity and began to show an interest in her
father's work, so Freud gave her some of his writings to read. About a
month later he asked her if she had any questions about what she had been
reading. "Just one," she replied, "what is a phallus?" Being a man of
science, Freud unbuttoned his pants and showed her. "Oh," Anna
exclaimed,
thus enlightened, "it's like a penis, only smaller !!" - A joke from the
incomparable Jane Gallop
>Take for example, the oft cited example of Gary, IN. in which the residents
>did not protest the air pollution until much later (decades) after other
>cities of similar backgrounds had protested. How can we understand the
>power at work here? Surely they had their desires and interests defined by
>the controlling steel factory. This follows perfectly well from a
>foucaultian analysis. But why should I care about this insatnce of power.
>The only reason for me to care is if it causes me some harm or subvverts
>some real interests that I might have: for example, the interest in working
>in a clean environment.
I notice a good amount of retorts like "Well, but why should I ..." or
"Yes, well, I still don't want to ... (for example - the desire to
change)" - I don't know how to respond to that.
But if I am pressed for a response , I would have to say, "you don't
have to". Foucault is clear that he is not giving us a set of
instructions or commands on how to live our lives or how to act (react)
in the world. So if you don't want to (to care, to change), that's
fine. As one proud Texan once instructed me, "Hey, man, it's a free
country" -
>the true
>self as a conglomeration of real interests which can be subverted by power
>configurations. It seems to me that everyone has such interest which might
>change slgithly in a cultural network (for example, an interest in working
>in a pollution free environement was not known by pre-industrial peoples).
>I am not sure how to answer your last question. If we say that the true
>self is a composite of real interests, then pretty much, everyone's
>interests would fall into the same general categories
My problem with this argument is that just how specific are you willing
to be when it comes to talking about these real interests ? Okay, I
grant you, one of my real interests is to live and I'm sure that's yours
as well. What if it turns out another one of my real interests is to
live in a country free of immigrants, or of gays and lesbians ? The
point I'm trying to make is that there are interests (very general ones)
that we all share and then there are specific ones that we don't not
share and most of the time it is specific ones that matter most in the
going-ons of our daily lives - and these are the ones we wage wars
(cultural and sometimes violent) over. The problem with "real interests"
is that if we get basic enough, sure - there is a shared "true"
interest, but then these interests are so basic, so obvious that it's
almost pointless to talk about them. However, if we get specific, we
find that interests (our conceptions of right and wrong, our views of
what constitute a good life, etc.) diverge, conflict. As for the
example of everyone's real interest in wanting to work in a pollution
free environment ... well, if only it were true - this world would a
much cleaner place than it is right now !!!
>But this plays into a false dichotomy (as I suggested before): why does
>realizing or admitting a true self mean that I have to be the same all the
>time. This is a static view of self. I think we should view the self as
>dynamic, as in potens, such as Aristotle or the Medievals did.
Okay. I'll buy that ... we pretty much agree on the conclusion (self as
dynamic, ever evolving, changing) - we just disagree on how we got
there - which is fine : true self that is constantly rewriting itself or
an ethos to be something other than who we are, to escape the regime of
the Same ... POtato, poTato.
> My problem
>with Foucault and other postmoderns that I have read is that the ignore
>anything between Kant and PLato...
Well, that's a little unfair. All the big shots of postmodernisms have
done things in that area. Half of Derrida's Grammatology is devoted to
Rousseau; a third of Dissemination to Plato; D has also written a study
of Condillac. Let's also not forget D's debate with Foucault on
Descartes and the place of Evil Genius within Descartes's discourse (kind
of hard to say, actually ... Descartes' discourse); Lacan has written
that marvelous thing on Kant avec Sade. Foucault's Order of Things
contains a great deal of materials on the Classical Period. De Man
devoted half of Allegory on Jean-Jacques and also did a fascinating
reading of the concept of Zero in Pascal's work. Jean-Luc Nancy wrote on
Descartes in Ego Sum. Luce Irigaray on Plato, and Deleuze has written
two excellent books on Spinoza and one book on Leibniz - in fact, Gilles
Deleuze's very first work (his dissertation I think) was on the good old
English empiricist David Hume of all people !!!
>And still I ask, why should I be different from before?
Absolutely no reason at all. This may sound trite - but if you don't
want to be different, don't. And if you do not find Foucault's
intellectual (even moral) ethos to be compelling ... well, okay ... try
to go look for something else instead. To put it simply, Michel is not
the boss of us ... and as Deleuze once said concerning A Thousand Plateau
(i'm paraphrasing here) - treat this book like a CD, if you don't like a
chapter, just skip to the next one and if you don't like the CD, just
push STOP.
Jason Lin
SFELMA@xxxxxxx
"Anna Freud was reaching maturity and began to show an interest in her
father's work, so Freud gave her some of his writings to read. About a
month later he asked her if she had any questions about what she had been
reading. "Just one," she replied, "what is a phallus?" Being a man of
science, Freud unbuttoned his pants and showed her. "Oh," Anna
exclaimed,
thus enlightened, "it's like a penis, only smaller !!" - A joke from the
incomparable Jane Gallop