On Mon, Jul 29, 1996 3:57:46 PM, Stephen D wrote:
>I am, like Marx and Foucault both, highly suspicious of claims to have
>_a priori_ knowledge about "human nature." But, in any case, the
>whole point is that "self-minded advantage" CAN be gained through
>working class solidarity, as any experienced trade unionist can tell
>you.
Stephen:
YOur historical take on the marxian legacy is impressive, but is it really
adequate to the original question? This question, i believe, concerned the
inherent inadequacy of marx's theory of power (which, I think, remains to
be defined for the purposes of this discussion) and Foucault's corrective
to that defect.
I would insist on the inadequacy of that opposition. Marx and Foucault are
interested in two kinds of power which operate on entirely different
levels. Or more accurately, foucault's normalizing effects infiltrate and
operate through the productive relations Marx describes. IN D&P, Foucault
writes: "At the emergence of large-scale industry, one finds, beneath the
division of the production process, the individualizing fragmentation of
labor power..." (145), and elsewhere "...behind the great abstraction of
exchange, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful
forces". As production co-ordinates activity it regulates and exercises
the bodies of workers. This difference is fundamental to understanding the
part played by productive relations in Foucault's theory of power, and on a
more general level his relationship to Western Marxism.
sb
>I am, like Marx and Foucault both, highly suspicious of claims to have
>_a priori_ knowledge about "human nature." But, in any case, the
>whole point is that "self-minded advantage" CAN be gained through
>working class solidarity, as any experienced trade unionist can tell
>you.
Stephen:
YOur historical take on the marxian legacy is impressive, but is it really
adequate to the original question? This question, i believe, concerned the
inherent inadequacy of marx's theory of power (which, I think, remains to
be defined for the purposes of this discussion) and Foucault's corrective
to that defect.
I would insist on the inadequacy of that opposition. Marx and Foucault are
interested in two kinds of power which operate on entirely different
levels. Or more accurately, foucault's normalizing effects infiltrate and
operate through the productive relations Marx describes. IN D&P, Foucault
writes: "At the emergence of large-scale industry, one finds, beneath the
division of the production process, the individualizing fragmentation of
labor power..." (145), and elsewhere "...behind the great abstraction of
exchange, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful
forces". As production co-ordinates activity it regulates and exercises
the bodies of workers. This difference is fundamental to understanding the
part played by productive relations in Foucault's theory of power, and on a
more general level his relationship to Western Marxism.
sb