Karl: I have had several copies of just this one message
> From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:05:34 +0000
> Subject: Re: Individualising effects of power
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Karl: Is that one person you?
> > Ross writes:
> > >
> > > I would like to start a new thread in this list,
> >
> > Under the circumstances, I'm sure I speak for all but one person on
> > the list when I say: THANK-YOU.
> >
> > > namely, the individualising
> > > effects of power. It blows away the Marxist concept of the 'class
> > > struggle'. I'll give you an example. In a recent study of redundant
> > > workers, there is an individisible connection between thought and action;
> > > how human beings see themselves positioned in the world and ideas that
> > > have been psychologically inculcated over time. When individuals in the
> > > study were repeatedly turned down for jobs, damage to the self had already
> > > been legitimised through historical conditioning. What is more, pressure to
> > > believe they were inadequate was intensified through the individualising
> > > effects of power which pits potentially redundant and workers actually
> > > redundant against one another. Thus they became pawns to classify,
> > > categorise and control.
> > >
> > > [etc.]
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > The examples you give may well suggest that what Foucault says about
> > "the individualising effects of power" has some "empirical" support.
> > Fair enough. The examples also suggest, more generally, that Foucault
> > has some interesting things to say, and that those interested in
> > social theory (etc.) ought to take his ideas seriously. I would be
> > the LAST person to deny that.
> >
> > However, you haven't made it clear why you think that the ideas in
> > question "blow away the Marxist concept of the 'class struggle,'"
> > which you even enclose in scare-quotes (perhaps suggesting that there
> > is no such thing).
> >
> > First of all, do you really think that an account that tells people,
> > as you put it, how "they became pawns" is capable of replacing an
> > account of how it is that groups of people act collectively (as they
> > sometimes do) to radically transform political and economic
> > structures?
> >
> > (By the way, I think Foucault's notion of power, which explicitly
> > entails that power cannot operate except in a context of antagonistic
> > interaction -- i.e., in the face of resistance --, specifically rules
> > out the idea that human beings can be made pawns, strictly speaking;
> > but either way, Foucault does not seem to offer a competing theory of
> > social-structural change, "a theory of social evolution," as Habermas
> > calls historical materialism).
> >
> > Finally, I will ask a very specific question: do you think that any
> > conception OTHER THAN the Marxist conception of class struggle can
> > offer a credible accout of what was happening in France, from October
> > to December of 1995, when literally MILLIONS of French workers
> > participated in a strike wave, supported by millions more who joined
> > them in hundreds of mass demonstrations. This wave of POLITICAL
> > STRIKES, in which millions of workers attempted to use their potential
> > power to stop production as a means to enforce changes to a government
> > austerity plan, is readily intelligible in Marxist terms. If any
> > perspective hopes not only to supplement Marxism, but to "blow it
> > away," it would have to be capable of explaining the French strike
> > wave at least as well as Marxism can. Nothing in your post indicated
> > how Foucault's insights into the "individualising effects of power"
> > were capable of doing any such thing.
> >
> > (Marx's idea, of course, is that the events like those in France are
> > "political struggles, i.e., struggles of class against class," and
> > that it is struggles of THAT KIND that account for radical
> > social-structural changes, such as the transition from Feudalism to
> > Capitalism. Strictly speaking, Marx had a much more complicated
> > theory, which distinguished between the "immediate" cause -- class
> > struggle -- and the cause "in the last analysis" -- the dialectic of
> > forces and relations of production. But I don't think that these
> > matters are relevant here).
> >
> > The question is: can we dispense with the concept of class struggle,
> > even in our efforts to understand CURRENT EVENTS (e.g., the USA's
> > "Contract with America", the French strikes, and so on)?
> >
> > Steve D.
> > SoBlo
> > Toronto
> > (C.U.P.E. Local 3902!!!)
> >
> >
>
>
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
>
Yours etc.,
Karl
> From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:05:34 +0000
> Subject: Re: Individualising effects of power
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Karl: Is that one person you?
> > Ross writes:
> > >
> > > I would like to start a new thread in this list,
> >
> > Under the circumstances, I'm sure I speak for all but one person on
> > the list when I say: THANK-YOU.
> >
> > > namely, the individualising
> > > effects of power. It blows away the Marxist concept of the 'class
> > > struggle'. I'll give you an example. In a recent study of redundant
> > > workers, there is an individisible connection between thought and action;
> > > how human beings see themselves positioned in the world and ideas that
> > > have been psychologically inculcated over time. When individuals in the
> > > study were repeatedly turned down for jobs, damage to the self had already
> > > been legitimised through historical conditioning. What is more, pressure to
> > > believe they were inadequate was intensified through the individualising
> > > effects of power which pits potentially redundant and workers actually
> > > redundant against one another. Thus they became pawns to classify,
> > > categorise and control.
> > >
> > > [etc.]
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > The examples you give may well suggest that what Foucault says about
> > "the individualising effects of power" has some "empirical" support.
> > Fair enough. The examples also suggest, more generally, that Foucault
> > has some interesting things to say, and that those interested in
> > social theory (etc.) ought to take his ideas seriously. I would be
> > the LAST person to deny that.
> >
> > However, you haven't made it clear why you think that the ideas in
> > question "blow away the Marxist concept of the 'class struggle,'"
> > which you even enclose in scare-quotes (perhaps suggesting that there
> > is no such thing).
> >
> > First of all, do you really think that an account that tells people,
> > as you put it, how "they became pawns" is capable of replacing an
> > account of how it is that groups of people act collectively (as they
> > sometimes do) to radically transform political and economic
> > structures?
> >
> > (By the way, I think Foucault's notion of power, which explicitly
> > entails that power cannot operate except in a context of antagonistic
> > interaction -- i.e., in the face of resistance --, specifically rules
> > out the idea that human beings can be made pawns, strictly speaking;
> > but either way, Foucault does not seem to offer a competing theory of
> > social-structural change, "a theory of social evolution," as Habermas
> > calls historical materialism).
> >
> > Finally, I will ask a very specific question: do you think that any
> > conception OTHER THAN the Marxist conception of class struggle can
> > offer a credible accout of what was happening in France, from October
> > to December of 1995, when literally MILLIONS of French workers
> > participated in a strike wave, supported by millions more who joined
> > them in hundreds of mass demonstrations. This wave of POLITICAL
> > STRIKES, in which millions of workers attempted to use their potential
> > power to stop production as a means to enforce changes to a government
> > austerity plan, is readily intelligible in Marxist terms. If any
> > perspective hopes not only to supplement Marxism, but to "blow it
> > away," it would have to be capable of explaining the French strike
> > wave at least as well as Marxism can. Nothing in your post indicated
> > how Foucault's insights into the "individualising effects of power"
> > were capable of doing any such thing.
> >
> > (Marx's idea, of course, is that the events like those in France are
> > "political struggles, i.e., struggles of class against class," and
> > that it is struggles of THAT KIND that account for radical
> > social-structural changes, such as the transition from Feudalism to
> > Capitalism. Strictly speaking, Marx had a much more complicated
> > theory, which distinguished between the "immediate" cause -- class
> > struggle -- and the cause "in the last analysis" -- the dialectic of
> > forces and relations of production. But I don't think that these
> > matters are relevant here).
> >
> > The question is: can we dispense with the concept of class struggle,
> > even in our efforts to understand CURRENT EVENTS (e.g., the USA's
> > "Contract with America", the French strikes, and so on)?
> >
> > Steve D.
> > SoBlo
> > Toronto
> > (C.U.P.E. Local 3902!!!)
> >
> >
>
>
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
>
Yours etc.,
Karl