Hi everyone.
In terms of "applied" Foucault, I always have the impression that Foucault
wrote not with the intention that he would actually be "applying" his work
in any way. I suppose this is why I find his ideas and theories somewhat
erratic. Why would one write about all the inconsistencies within the
social system, using extensive genealogical approaches without actually
wanting to achieve any sort of purpose? This appears to be a
self-contradictory thing to do. Perhaps I am completely wrong. If so, I
am certain that someone will be kind enough to set the record straight.
I was recently reading an essay one of my Profs. provided me with dealing
with Foucault and the Disciplining of Grief -- how people who are grieving
become transformed into docile bodies and the practice of "complicated
grief" (i.e. extensive grieving, or no emotion whatsoever) is designated
as pathological. He claims in his paper that for power to exist there
must be resistance. My question is, if power and resistance are trapped
perpetually in this relationship, why even resist at all if there is
really no final goal? Does Foucault truly believe that this is the state
we are all destined for? Perpetual struggle without any resolution?
Another question I have is Foucault's claim that "we" as a society assume
that truth is good, ideal, something to be striving for. In telling us
that truth is constructed, Foucault destroys the ideal. What does he hope
to accomplish in doing this?
Regards,
Clara Ho
The University of Calgary