Comrades:
wake up! I hope the entire list hasn't drifted off to expensive vacation
homes, far from their modems.
maybe I can stimulate things by throwing out a question to which I don't
already know the answer in advance, nor do I hold any particular stake in
the answer.
In an interview on the question of democracy, Foucault said that he was
comfortable with democracy understood as a critical principle, but not as a
regulative one. MF writes: "..... [democracy] is perhaps a critical idea
to maintain at all times: to ask oneself what proportion of
nonconsensuality is implied in such a power relation, and whether that
degree of nonconsensuality is necessary or not, and then one may question
every power relation to that extent. The farthest I would go is to say
that perhaps one must not be for consensuality, but one must be against
nonconsensuality." (Foucault reader, 379)
Hmmm... this seems to open up two difficult questions. 1. does the
critique of power on the basis of nonconsensuality have ANYTHING to do with
everything F has writen about power thus far? Is it possible for him to
talk about nonconsensuality without violating the very (anti) foundations
of his earlier projects? and 2. as a political theorist, or democratic
theorist, how does foucault stand as a critic of nonconsentuality who stops
short of being an advocate for consentuality?
(and 3rd: why do I feel that this position perfectly describes my own
attitude towards democratic politics...... am I the only one? )
sb
wake up! I hope the entire list hasn't drifted off to expensive vacation
homes, far from their modems.
maybe I can stimulate things by throwing out a question to which I don't
already know the answer in advance, nor do I hold any particular stake in
the answer.
In an interview on the question of democracy, Foucault said that he was
comfortable with democracy understood as a critical principle, but not as a
regulative one. MF writes: "..... [democracy] is perhaps a critical idea
to maintain at all times: to ask oneself what proportion of
nonconsensuality is implied in such a power relation, and whether that
degree of nonconsensuality is necessary or not, and then one may question
every power relation to that extent. The farthest I would go is to say
that perhaps one must not be for consensuality, but one must be against
nonconsensuality." (Foucault reader, 379)
Hmmm... this seems to open up two difficult questions. 1. does the
critique of power on the basis of nonconsensuality have ANYTHING to do with
everything F has writen about power thus far? Is it possible for him to
talk about nonconsensuality without violating the very (anti) foundations
of his earlier projects? and 2. as a political theorist, or democratic
theorist, how does foucault stand as a critic of nonconsentuality who stops
short of being an advocate for consentuality?
(and 3rd: why do I feel that this position perfectly describes my own
attitude towards democratic politics...... am I the only one? )
sb