Clearly, Foucault as well as academics in general have their
subjectivities constituted by relations of power/knowledge as much as
anyone else. As such, Foucault's works are effects of 'author functions.'
But if that is all there is then I do not see a particular problem with
recognizing that his works are 'effects' instead of the product of a
creative intentionality that attained the relatively omniscient status of
an academic that saw the 'truth' of power.
This would be a problem if F argued that power relations were or
are monolithic and fixed. But F's argument is that power relations are
multiple and in constant transformation producing both normalizing
discourse/practices and d/p's that pervert or subvert the former.
Presumably, Foucault's works are of the latter sort.
subjectivities constituted by relations of power/knowledge as much as
anyone else. As such, Foucault's works are effects of 'author functions.'
But if that is all there is then I do not see a particular problem with
recognizing that his works are 'effects' instead of the product of a
creative intentionality that attained the relatively omniscient status of
an academic that saw the 'truth' of power.
This would be a problem if F argued that power relations were or
are monolithic and fixed. But F's argument is that power relations are
multiple and in constant transformation producing both normalizing
discourse/practices and d/p's that pervert or subvert the former.
Presumably, Foucault's works are of the latter sort.