>
>> I think to a large extent some of us (in
>> academia, and elsewhere) have subjectivities
>> imbued with the "lessons" of Foucault's writings.
>> I'd encourage us not to think of those lessons
>> as being so much "out there" and intractable
>> to our puny modern minds, but rather as being
>> part of who we are, and thus discursible from
>> the inside, as it were. What was Foucault *really*
>> saying? Well, let's look at ourselves to see
>> what we've become in his wake.And let's drop
>> the attitude that his work is so intractable. He
>> was talking about us, after all.
>
>Hmmm, was he talking about us? I think that's
>a very interesting question. Only his later works
>really come to speak of subjectivity, and his
>work in "Savoir/Punir," "Discipline and Punish"
>did not speak at this level, instead dismissing
>reference to subjectivity in order to more accurately
>depict power/knowledge. In this book he wasn't
>really talking about us, so to speak.
Time for my puny $0.02. What about Foucault's affirmation (I forget the
source here) that his work can be conceived as a "history of the present"?
Would this not then be indicative that Foucault was very much concerned
with "us"? Additionally, I quote from "The Subject and Power" in D&R's
_MFoucault: Beyond Structuralism & Hermes_:
"I would like to say...what has been the goal of my work during the last 20
years. It has not been to analyze the phenomena of power, nor to elaborate
the foundations of such an analysis.
"My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different modes
by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects..." (208)
Many commentators have (and still do) insisted on Foucault's deprivileging
of the subject in his work, yet this is not entirely correct. Even in the
early work, subjectivity is central to his thought. One can read Foucault
as turning Sartre's work on its ear--an effort to think, in
_non-metaphysical_ fashion_, about the ways in which we find ourselves
bound to one subject position or another in concrete situations.
I think both of you are correct. One not ought to be hung up on what
Foucault's definition of power "is". This hypostatizes power as a _thing_,
which is totally inappropriate given how Foucault views power as comprised
of productive forces that are always in flux (a la Nietzsche). At the same
time, we are bound to language, which in one way or another is (that word
again!) doomed to posit things "as such". Unless we are to retreat into
Wittgenstein's bubble (_Tractatus_, 7), the best we can do is proceed
happily and speak! (or write, as is the case here)
effervescently,
David Pekerow
Philosophy
DePaul University, Chicago
>> I think to a large extent some of us (in
>> academia, and elsewhere) have subjectivities
>> imbued with the "lessons" of Foucault's writings.
>> I'd encourage us not to think of those lessons
>> as being so much "out there" and intractable
>> to our puny modern minds, but rather as being
>> part of who we are, and thus discursible from
>> the inside, as it were. What was Foucault *really*
>> saying? Well, let's look at ourselves to see
>> what we've become in his wake.And let's drop
>> the attitude that his work is so intractable. He
>> was talking about us, after all.
>
>Hmmm, was he talking about us? I think that's
>a very interesting question. Only his later works
>really come to speak of subjectivity, and his
>work in "Savoir/Punir," "Discipline and Punish"
>did not speak at this level, instead dismissing
>reference to subjectivity in order to more accurately
>depict power/knowledge. In this book he wasn't
>really talking about us, so to speak.
Time for my puny $0.02. What about Foucault's affirmation (I forget the
source here) that his work can be conceived as a "history of the present"?
Would this not then be indicative that Foucault was very much concerned
with "us"? Additionally, I quote from "The Subject and Power" in D&R's
_MFoucault: Beyond Structuralism & Hermes_:
"I would like to say...what has been the goal of my work during the last 20
years. It has not been to analyze the phenomena of power, nor to elaborate
the foundations of such an analysis.
"My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different modes
by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects..." (208)
Many commentators have (and still do) insisted on Foucault's deprivileging
of the subject in his work, yet this is not entirely correct. Even in the
early work, subjectivity is central to his thought. One can read Foucault
as turning Sartre's work on its ear--an effort to think, in
_non-metaphysical_ fashion_, about the ways in which we find ourselves
bound to one subject position or another in concrete situations.
I think both of you are correct. One not ought to be hung up on what
Foucault's definition of power "is". This hypostatizes power as a _thing_,
which is totally inappropriate given how Foucault views power as comprised
of productive forces that are always in flux (a la Nietzsche). At the same
time, we are bound to language, which in one way or another is (that word
again!) doomed to posit things "as such". Unless we are to retreat into
Wittgenstein's bubble (_Tractatus_, 7), the best we can do is proceed
happily and speak! (or write, as is the case here)
effervescently,
David Pekerow
Philosophy
DePaul University, Chicago