On Wed, Jul 17, 1996 9:18:13 AM, John Sproule wrote:
>What I remain most fascinated by is how the very disciplinary techniques
>that the institutionalized human sciences have grown up with now seem to
be
>operating to bring these groups to heel. I acknowledge that trying to say
>much more about the forces at work in this contemporary scene is at best
>speculative. One can observe the ebb and flow of power between groups or
>institutions, but describing the currents carrying these forces is beyond
>any comprehensive perspective that I can imagine.
I find your line of questioning fascinating and I'm certain that it points
towards fruitful disclosures. Certainly one of Foucault's greatest betes
noires was the psychoanalytic tradition, though unfortunately he stopped
short of a full analysis of its 20th century implications.
I just think it is important to emphasize the historical character of the
functions played by certain disciplinary mechanisms in establishing
normalizing power relations, and most of all, the ultimately transient
nature of those functions.... are prisons today still the privileged site
of the development and dissemination of normative power, or was his focus
on the prisons only part of his survey of the emergence of disciplinary
regimes in France?
It is true that he became active in prison reform at the time of D&P, but
perhaps this was misguided? Perhaps he was making the same mistake in his
own work? I'd be curious to know: why did he think prisons were important
both in 1789 and in 1972?
In any case, your discussion seems to be about "the very disciplinary
techniques that the institutionalized human sciences have grown up with
[and that] now seem to be operating to bring these groups to heel." When
you say "techniques", do you mean the professional discourses of
psychoanalysis or does techniques refer to the overall practice?
sb
>What I remain most fascinated by is how the very disciplinary techniques
>that the institutionalized human sciences have grown up with now seem to
be
>operating to bring these groups to heel. I acknowledge that trying to say
>much more about the forces at work in this contemporary scene is at best
>speculative. One can observe the ebb and flow of power between groups or
>institutions, but describing the currents carrying these forces is beyond
>any comprehensive perspective that I can imagine.
I find your line of questioning fascinating and I'm certain that it points
towards fruitful disclosures. Certainly one of Foucault's greatest betes
noires was the psychoanalytic tradition, though unfortunately he stopped
short of a full analysis of its 20th century implications.
I just think it is important to emphasize the historical character of the
functions played by certain disciplinary mechanisms in establishing
normalizing power relations, and most of all, the ultimately transient
nature of those functions.... are prisons today still the privileged site
of the development and dissemination of normative power, or was his focus
on the prisons only part of his survey of the emergence of disciplinary
regimes in France?
It is true that he became active in prison reform at the time of D&P, but
perhaps this was misguided? Perhaps he was making the same mistake in his
own work? I'd be curious to know: why did he think prisons were important
both in 1789 and in 1972?
In any case, your discussion seems to be about "the very disciplinary
techniques that the institutionalized human sciences have grown up with
[and that] now seem to be operating to bring these groups to heel." When
you say "techniques", do you mean the professional discourses of
psychoanalysis or does techniques refer to the overall practice?
sb