Hi folks. Thomas wrote:
> Benjamin -
>
> You bring up an excellent point here regarding what might be called the
> "co-constitution" of the subject (agent) and the object (structure).
>
> "But - did he really, in philosophical means, analyse *social* formation,
> not rather formations which are constitutive for what we call social?
There's an interesting ambiguity in the word "formation" I think.
Take the term "discursive formation" for example. On the one hand,
this term is a noun, designating a "thing" - a methodological unity,
a kind of shorthand or a "title". On the other hand, the word is a
nominalization, designating not a thing but a process, as in a verb,
as in "the formation of discourse = the process of its production"
(although I realize here that the line between noun and verb is
somewhat blurry - but then, that's exactly the ambiguity). I'm not
sure what all can be made of this, but I'm quite sure that Foucault
deploys this ambiguity "consciously", so to speak.
I guess my point is that it's perhaps not necessary to choose between
one and the other - i.e. whether Foucault analyses social formations
or formations of the social. Approaching Foucault from one
perspective permits observations not possible from the other, and
vice versa. So perhaps it's more a question of "both/and" rather than
"either/or".
Hmm. Any thoughts?
malcolm
******************************************************
All affirmations are true in some sense,
false in some sense, true and false in some
sense, true and meaningless in some sense,
and true and false and meaningless in some
sense.
-Sri Syadasti
******************************************************
> Benjamin -
>
> You bring up an excellent point here regarding what might be called the
> "co-constitution" of the subject (agent) and the object (structure).
>
> "But - did he really, in philosophical means, analyse *social* formation,
> not rather formations which are constitutive for what we call social?
There's an interesting ambiguity in the word "formation" I think.
Take the term "discursive formation" for example. On the one hand,
this term is a noun, designating a "thing" - a methodological unity,
a kind of shorthand or a "title". On the other hand, the word is a
nominalization, designating not a thing but a process, as in a verb,
as in "the formation of discourse = the process of its production"
(although I realize here that the line between noun and verb is
somewhat blurry - but then, that's exactly the ambiguity). I'm not
sure what all can be made of this, but I'm quite sure that Foucault
deploys this ambiguity "consciously", so to speak.
I guess my point is that it's perhaps not necessary to choose between
one and the other - i.e. whether Foucault analyses social formations
or formations of the social. Approaching Foucault from one
perspective permits observations not possible from the other, and
vice versa. So perhaps it's more a question of "both/and" rather than
"either/or".
Hmm. Any thoughts?
malcolm
******************************************************
All affirmations are true in some sense,
false in some sense, true and false in some
sense, true and meaningless in some sense,
and true and false and meaningless in some
sense.
-Sri Syadasti
******************************************************