Hi Folks: Another couple of cents on the Foucault and resistance thread.
While not able to discern Foucault's intentions re his theorizing, I do
find him helpful. True, the latter genealogical work is not deeply
engrossing for me, and he does seem to turn pessimistic with regards to
our ability to escape structures of normalization, but that does not mean
that we can't derive benefit from his works and apply them to our own
fields.
The writing about inconsistencies within the social system is much
needed. His deep set analysis of those power-resistance-normalization
complexes in society are important. We all assume domination or
oppression by an Althusserian "State Ideological Apparatus" yet we don't
very often devote our attention beyond that scheme to look at discursive
formations and how they interact to create what Foucault called
"invisible strategies of normalization." Foucault brings that perspective
to the forefront. But there is no contradiction in detailed analysis
without provision of solutions. I find that all critical work is indeed
normative; some actively resists that label, and in some you can sense
the despair of its voice. I think Clara's objection stems from the note
of pessimism in Foucault's voice, and his eventual turn to technologies
of the self rather than to the world and its peoples.
>
>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.
Yes, Foucault does state that there is no power without resistance. The
moment power comes into being, resistance also springs up. These are two
sides of the same coin. But don't despair, most things you'll find are
this dialectical in nature. The scientific explanation for this is
Newton's law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(schooling made sure we memorized that one!). I don't know if Foucault
thinks this relationship is so negative after all. Remember that Foucault
does change his perspective on power from a negative one to a rather
positive one (power as dynamic relationship). We need to step out of that
box we have constructed for ourselves that says that power is a bad thing
always. In my field at least, McKerrow has presented a rather compelling
view of the social critic: The role of the social critic is to expose
the structures of normalization that arise out of the discourse of power,
in that critique a presupposed ought or should exists, that is, the
critic posits possibilities of freedom. This act by the critic however
leads to its own domination in its altering of the relations of power.
When these new relations are instantiated the critique will continue.
McKerrow calls this the critique of freedom and domination. Foucaultian
critiques of McKerrow have been made, but it does hightlight the cycle of
power and resistance, and our continued struggle.
Truth constructed? No way! *smile* Yep, it does shock at first, and
continues to shock after that because we strive for such secure holds in
life. Remember that the assertion that truth is constructed also falls
within its own black hole. As one of my professors says: "spend your
beliefs wisely."
Sorry for the long post, and its meandering tone, I find myself without
any physical resources at this moment. I did struggle with similar
questions Clara, keep up the questioning.
Regards,
N. Cordova
cordova@xxxxxxxxxxx
>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
>
>
While not able to discern Foucault's intentions re his theorizing, I do
find him helpful. True, the latter genealogical work is not deeply
engrossing for me, and he does seem to turn pessimistic with regards to
our ability to escape structures of normalization, but that does not mean
that we can't derive benefit from his works and apply them to our own
fields.
The writing about inconsistencies within the social system is much
needed. His deep set analysis of those power-resistance-normalization
complexes in society are important. We all assume domination or
oppression by an Althusserian "State Ideological Apparatus" yet we don't
very often devote our attention beyond that scheme to look at discursive
formations and how they interact to create what Foucault called
"invisible strategies of normalization." Foucault brings that perspective
to the forefront. But there is no contradiction in detailed analysis
without provision of solutions. I find that all critical work is indeed
normative; some actively resists that label, and in some you can sense
the despair of its voice. I think Clara's objection stems from the note
of pessimism in Foucault's voice, and his eventual turn to technologies
of the self rather than to the world and its peoples.
>
>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.
Yes, Foucault does state that there is no power without resistance. The
moment power comes into being, resistance also springs up. These are two
sides of the same coin. But don't despair, most things you'll find are
this dialectical in nature. The scientific explanation for this is
Newton's law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(schooling made sure we memorized that one!). I don't know if Foucault
thinks this relationship is so negative after all. Remember that Foucault
does change his perspective on power from a negative one to a rather
positive one (power as dynamic relationship). We need to step out of that
box we have constructed for ourselves that says that power is a bad thing
always. In my field at least, McKerrow has presented a rather compelling
view of the social critic: The role of the social critic is to expose
the structures of normalization that arise out of the discourse of power,
in that critique a presupposed ought or should exists, that is, the
critic posits possibilities of freedom. This act by the critic however
leads to its own domination in its altering of the relations of power.
When these new relations are instantiated the critique will continue.
McKerrow calls this the critique of freedom and domination. Foucaultian
critiques of McKerrow have been made, but it does hightlight the cycle of
power and resistance, and our continued struggle.
Truth constructed? No way! *smile* Yep, it does shock at first, and
continues to shock after that because we strive for such secure holds in
life. Remember that the assertion that truth is constructed also falls
within its own black hole. As one of my professors says: "spend your
beliefs wisely."
Sorry for the long post, and its meandering tone, I find myself without
any physical resources at this moment. I did struggle with similar
questions Clara, keep up the questioning.
Regards,
N. Cordova
cordova@xxxxxxxxxxx
>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
>
>