B wanika askes for alternative to knowledge - power symbiosis. This have
already given reactions, which states, that power connot be avioded in
Foucaults thinking. I will like to add, that the noting of power in
Foucault is linked to the fokus on "how" in contrast to the noting "why" as
pointed out in another dicussion on this list some weeks ago. "How"
introduces a fokus on the way things are organized - the functioning of
various matters. And not so much how to change things. The question "why"
often fokus on formulating different degrees of transcendent reality - so
called abstract utopias, which is very fare from the philosophy of
Foucault. It does not mean, that you cannot think in alternatives grounded
on Foucault, but did not write such matters into his text. This leads me to
the second part of the question, which deals with the expertocratic
classes. Foucault was as many other french intellectuals political active
(an present exampel of the same tendency is Pierre Bourdieu), but he
insisted on a seperation of his political praxis and the scientific
analysis. The perspective is to be aware that you are situated in power,
but at the same times try to confront powerstructures by speaking up
towards what you find unjust - by undressing the powerinterest in society -
by working to promote the conditions for alternative interests. The
formulating of what is right and wrong, the choice of interest just cannot
be a scientific matter acording to Foucault, but must be done concrete in
your daily and political praxis.
I am also inspired by german critical theory, especialle Ernst Bloch and
Walter Benjamin, which may influence my interpretation of Foucault! One
problem with some critical theory is that it tries to objectify the
platfrom from where actions take place by making critique into science.
Foucault functions for me as a weapon aginst this problem.
I think that to export the discussion of right and wrong, discussions of
which interests you prefere to promote to concrete chioces, maust not
result in that these matters are not discussed From owner-foucault Wed Sep 25 15:28:04 1996
Return-Path: owner-foucault
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) id PAA33692 for foucault-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:25:42 -0400
Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.9]) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA108806 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:24:45 -0400
Received: from netmanager.hoe.se by mail.virginia.edu id aa19418;
25 Sep 96 13:38 EDT
Received: from hoe.se (netserver.hoe.se [130.238.212.6]) by netmanager.hoe.se (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA24546 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:40:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from stud (stud.hoe.se [130.238.222.36]) by hoe.se (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA14075 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:39:14 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from stud.hoe.se by stud (8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
id TAA29865; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:33:03 +0200
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:33:03 +0200
Message-Id: <199609251733.TAA29865@stud>
X-Sender: h961138@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Bwanika <h961138@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Foucauldian readings on the History and Philosophy of Scientific Rationality
Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is very interesting indeed. For how are we going desolve power in our
society , i.e. a lecturer or a medicine man has got power but far different
>from political power which is used to oppress. I think we confuse force to
mean power. Force is absolute that is to say it might be directional.
Force of gravity even in the formular shows two variables in this force to
move away form power. Power to pull down an apple , a stone thrown in the air.
Power in essence, should be dialectical , Marx again. This is important,
once one exerts one direction power = force (mass, distance ) then this is
no longer power but force i.e. money power (directional i.e. consumption and
mass i.e quantity ). This shows exactly how political power is misused in
oppression, which in the medical doctor's situation is dialectically limited
by ethics medicine. Distance is decayed in ethics and there remain only mass
, in form of knowledge. Even the old of our soiety though very knowledge
never used their knowledge to oppress us.
If I am to exert my body power to bend an iron bar , then this power is no
longer power but force. This will not be the same as if I am to exert
parental power, for example on children, I am limited with the domain of
love . Two directionallity - dialectical.
That is to say, I look into the negative of one directionality not to reach
a critical point where in the "Iron Bar " situation I will bend it, but in a
child situation I will convice it .
Here we will realise that we are moving away from pyhsics (methodology) in
social science to biology circle (ontology) in social science , what this
implies is the cross breeding of knowledge . Which the western world has
catergorically mistaken. Remake the world.
I think if we are to have a democractic society, power should be biological
that is it should decay somehow . But not absolute power as my phyiscal
power to be able to oppress other people (bend the iron bar ) i.e. by being
one directional -force.
What do you say ?
I think this article throws light on such a very sensitive issue.
Bwanika.
p
already given reactions, which states, that power connot be avioded in
Foucaults thinking. I will like to add, that the noting of power in
Foucault is linked to the fokus on "how" in contrast to the noting "why" as
pointed out in another dicussion on this list some weeks ago. "How"
introduces a fokus on the way things are organized - the functioning of
various matters. And not so much how to change things. The question "why"
often fokus on formulating different degrees of transcendent reality - so
called abstract utopias, which is very fare from the philosophy of
Foucault. It does not mean, that you cannot think in alternatives grounded
on Foucault, but did not write such matters into his text. This leads me to
the second part of the question, which deals with the expertocratic
classes. Foucault was as many other french intellectuals political active
(an present exampel of the same tendency is Pierre Bourdieu), but he
insisted on a seperation of his political praxis and the scientific
analysis. The perspective is to be aware that you are situated in power,
but at the same times try to confront powerstructures by speaking up
towards what you find unjust - by undressing the powerinterest in society -
by working to promote the conditions for alternative interests. The
formulating of what is right and wrong, the choice of interest just cannot
be a scientific matter acording to Foucault, but must be done concrete in
your daily and political praxis.
I am also inspired by german critical theory, especialle Ernst Bloch and
Walter Benjamin, which may influence my interpretation of Foucault! One
problem with some critical theory is that it tries to objectify the
platfrom from where actions take place by making critique into science.
Foucault functions for me as a weapon aginst this problem.
I think that to export the discussion of right and wrong, discussions of
which interests you prefere to promote to concrete chioces, maust not
result in that these matters are not discussed From owner-foucault Wed Sep 25 15:28:04 1996
Return-Path: owner-foucault
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) id PAA33692 for foucault-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:25:42 -0400
Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.9]) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA108806 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:24:45 -0400
Received: from netmanager.hoe.se by mail.virginia.edu id aa19418;
25 Sep 96 13:38 EDT
Received: from hoe.se (netserver.hoe.se [130.238.212.6]) by netmanager.hoe.se (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA24546 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:40:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from stud (stud.hoe.se [130.238.222.36]) by hoe.se (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA14075 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:39:14 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from stud.hoe.se by stud (8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
id TAA29865; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:33:03 +0200
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:33:03 +0200
Message-Id: <199609251733.TAA29865@stud>
X-Sender: h961138@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Bwanika <h961138@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Foucauldian readings on the History and Philosophy of Scientific Rationality
Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is very interesting indeed. For how are we going desolve power in our
society , i.e. a lecturer or a medicine man has got power but far different
>from political power which is used to oppress. I think we confuse force to
mean power. Force is absolute that is to say it might be directional.
Force of gravity even in the formular shows two variables in this force to
move away form power. Power to pull down an apple , a stone thrown in the air.
Power in essence, should be dialectical , Marx again. This is important,
once one exerts one direction power = force (mass, distance ) then this is
no longer power but force i.e. money power (directional i.e. consumption and
mass i.e quantity ). This shows exactly how political power is misused in
oppression, which in the medical doctor's situation is dialectically limited
by ethics medicine. Distance is decayed in ethics and there remain only mass
, in form of knowledge. Even the old of our soiety though very knowledge
never used their knowledge to oppress us.
If I am to exert my body power to bend an iron bar , then this power is no
longer power but force. This will not be the same as if I am to exert
parental power, for example on children, I am limited with the domain of
love . Two directionallity - dialectical.
That is to say, I look into the negative of one directionality not to reach
a critical point where in the "Iron Bar " situation I will bend it, but in a
child situation I will convice it .
Here we will realise that we are moving away from pyhsics (methodology) in
social science to biology circle (ontology) in social science , what this
implies is the cross breeding of knowledge . Which the western world has
catergorically mistaken. Remake the world.
I think if we are to have a democractic society, power should be biological
that is it should decay somehow . But not absolute power as my phyiscal
power to be able to oppress other people (bend the iron bar ) i.e. by being
one directional -force.
What do you say ?
I think this article throws light on such a very sensitive issue.
Bwanika.
p