On Sun, 6 Oct 1996 15:12:03 -0400 rmbayi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (cyuma
mbayiha)
>Besides, where the hell is any connection between that newtonian
>notion of power and the one we know from Foucault?
>
>Gone.
>and sorry for the tone.
>Your posting really bugged my head off.
>
>cyuma
>
>>Help with your views , we need to redifine the whole concept of power
>>as linked to politics and the academicia ;
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>There is landing on the conceptual difficults in defining what power
>is .
>>And by so doing we tend, to misinterprete what power is for real.
>>Power can't be force or for that matter a derivative of force. Since
power is
>>positioned and in that case is grounded. Force traditionally, is
directional >>which means force becomes force when it covers a distance
in a given >>direction. For axample i apply force to break/bend an iron
bar but I
>>use power (parental ) order children to school . <etc., etc., etc.>
You will excuse my interjection, but it occurs to me that we are
mistaken in any observation that there is singular definition of power
present anywhere in Foucault. Rather, it would seem to me that Foucault
very explicitly insists (partly as a response to Baudrillard) that there
is no global definition of power present in his work. It would appear
instead that power, much like rationality, does not have a singular
overrarching historical form but assumes many historical forms. A
genealogical history might define for us what power might come to mean
in a given context, but we should not expect Foucault to provide an
absolute definition of any type.
To speak to the matter of power and force, it would seem that force
is one type of power. Indeed, I can be coerced by the force which
another person exerts over me in a given situation. However, that
should in no way allow me to say that force=power, any more than I could
avoid saying that knowledge=power in a class taught by the esteemed
Monsieur Foucault without being slapped upside the head.
As for the long, cloudy statement about (E)motion, I sense a great
deal more of anthropomorphism and Aristotlean physics that anything I
recognize as Foucauldian. This seems to be an indulgence in a metaphor,
not an analysis. However, as I already said, I happen to be drunk right
now. Which has never seemed to impede my ability to read, explicate, or
discuss Foucault, but I haven't had much experience at that either.
Frankly, this just reminds me of a lecture Michael Holquist tried to
give on, among other things, the relationship between Einsteinian
relativity and Bakhtin. Could some please provide some insight?
-Bayard Bell
mbayiha)
>Besides, where the hell is any connection between that newtonian
>notion of power and the one we know from Foucault?
>
>Gone.
>and sorry for the tone.
>Your posting really bugged my head off.
>
>cyuma
>
>>Help with your views , we need to redifine the whole concept of power
>>as linked to politics and the academicia ;
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>There is landing on the conceptual difficults in defining what power
>is .
>>And by so doing we tend, to misinterprete what power is for real.
>>Power can't be force or for that matter a derivative of force. Since
power is
>>positioned and in that case is grounded. Force traditionally, is
directional >>which means force becomes force when it covers a distance
in a given >>direction. For axample i apply force to break/bend an iron
bar but I
>>use power (parental ) order children to school . <etc., etc., etc.>
You will excuse my interjection, but it occurs to me that we are
mistaken in any observation that there is singular definition of power
present anywhere in Foucault. Rather, it would seem to me that Foucault
very explicitly insists (partly as a response to Baudrillard) that there
is no global definition of power present in his work. It would appear
instead that power, much like rationality, does not have a singular
overrarching historical form but assumes many historical forms. A
genealogical history might define for us what power might come to mean
in a given context, but we should not expect Foucault to provide an
absolute definition of any type.
To speak to the matter of power and force, it would seem that force
is one type of power. Indeed, I can be coerced by the force which
another person exerts over me in a given situation. However, that
should in no way allow me to say that force=power, any more than I could
avoid saying that knowledge=power in a class taught by the esteemed
Monsieur Foucault without being slapped upside the head.
As for the long, cloudy statement about (E)motion, I sense a great
deal more of anthropomorphism and Aristotlean physics that anything I
recognize as Foucauldian. This seems to be an indulgence in a metaphor,
not an analysis. However, as I already said, I happen to be drunk right
now. Which has never seemed to impede my ability to read, explicate, or
discuss Foucault, but I haven't had much experience at that either.
Frankly, this just reminds me of a lecture Michael Holquist tried to
give on, among other things, the relationship between Einsteinian
relativity and Bakhtin. Could some please provide some insight?
-Bayard Bell