Would you happen to have the reference for the paper you cite here? I'm
working with the "work of mourning" at the moment and would be interested to
see how your Prof. is using Foucault in this respect.
Thanks in advance.
>
>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
>
working with the "work of mourning" at the moment and would be interested to
see how your Prof. is using Foucault in this respect.
Thanks in advance.
>
>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
>