Dear everyone,
I want to respond to Clara's message, but first let me introduce myself,
as I don't believe I've written to the list before (if I have, pardon my
rudeness in not having introduced myself before). My name is Mark Rifkin,
and I'm a Ph.D. student at the University of Pennsylvania interested in
reading 19th Century American literature and Marx's work into and out of
each other also focusing on issues of colonialism, nationalism, and queer
theory.
Okay, now that's out of the way...
On the issue that Clara raises that in Foucault "power" and "resistance"
are not diametrically distinguished, but in fact intimately implicated in
and coextensive with each other, I would like to suggest that this is not
a cause for alarm or a feeling of impotence. In fact, I would offer that
Foucault's thought on this point is rather empowering. The downside is
that there is, in Foucault's terms, no "great point of refusal" (History
of Sexuality: Volume I) in which one may oust oppressive and restrictive
regimes of power. However, while one loses a vision of "pure" resistance
or revolution, one comes to think of "resistance" as a series of
negotiations, mediations, and compromises that lie within one's reach.
One can use the tools at hand and the system with which one is confronted
to attempt to construct a system that is in some degree more equitable
than what currently exists. While the meaning of "equitable" is always up
for grabs, the very need for constantly questioning and discussing such
ideals, Foucault's work suggests, leads to a kind of "resistance" that
never ultimately gets one to utopia but one that does open up the
idea/practice of multiple options, strategies, visions within
"resistance." Also, one should remember, that will Foucault rejects the
possibility of a truly radical revolution that utterly uproots the
politico-epistemological forms that preceded it, he does not disallow that
a given situation, change, alteration, questioning can lead to better
conditions for a given group. However, this change just will not be
totally unimplicated in the system(s) of power it seeks to alter.
I hope that was clear (I'm writing very quickly...someone's waiting to use
the system).
-Mark
I want to respond to Clara's message, but first let me introduce myself,
as I don't believe I've written to the list before (if I have, pardon my
rudeness in not having introduced myself before). My name is Mark Rifkin,
and I'm a Ph.D. student at the University of Pennsylvania interested in
reading 19th Century American literature and Marx's work into and out of
each other also focusing on issues of colonialism, nationalism, and queer
theory.
Okay, now that's out of the way...
On the issue that Clara raises that in Foucault "power" and "resistance"
are not diametrically distinguished, but in fact intimately implicated in
and coextensive with each other, I would like to suggest that this is not
a cause for alarm or a feeling of impotence. In fact, I would offer that
Foucault's thought on this point is rather empowering. The downside is
that there is, in Foucault's terms, no "great point of refusal" (History
of Sexuality: Volume I) in which one may oust oppressive and restrictive
regimes of power. However, while one loses a vision of "pure" resistance
or revolution, one comes to think of "resistance" as a series of
negotiations, mediations, and compromises that lie within one's reach.
One can use the tools at hand and the system with which one is confronted
to attempt to construct a system that is in some degree more equitable
than what currently exists. While the meaning of "equitable" is always up
for grabs, the very need for constantly questioning and discussing such
ideals, Foucault's work suggests, leads to a kind of "resistance" that
never ultimately gets one to utopia but one that does open up the
idea/practice of multiple options, strategies, visions within
"resistance." Also, one should remember, that will Foucault rejects the
possibility of a truly radical revolution that utterly uproots the
politico-epistemological forms that preceded it, he does not disallow that
a given situation, change, alteration, questioning can lead to better
conditions for a given group. However, this change just will not be
totally unimplicated in the system(s) of power it seeks to alter.
I hope that was clear (I'm writing very quickly...someone's waiting to use
the system).
-Mark