> 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)
David,
I understand your position, but I think one can talk
about a noun, power, which does not refer to a _thing_
which *is* something like energy, avoiding a metaphysics.
One can talk about the relationship which *is* power,
which is not a *thing* anymore than _acting_ is a *thing*,
and talk about it in the context of a _microphysics of
power_.
As far as definitions go, I don't get "hung up" on them
anymore than I get hung up on the fact that I am in
academia, a place I once swore to never sell my "soul" to.
However, for me to freely act within academia, it stands
clear that I must continuously examine what I am
involved in if I am not to lose my "soul." I think this is the
same as Foucault's requirement that his critics examine
the assumptions of their discipline so that they may more
fully engage in the dialectic. As such, I like to remain
aware of definitions since they do place limits on our
understanding or insight. If there is one thing we cannot
do, it's take the definition out of Foucault. After all, he's
looking for the limits so that we might possibly move
beyond them. This is not to say that we would move
outside of power, but that in forging new possibilities
of thought we might find new relationships of power.
But, first, we must define the limits, and I believe that
this requires new definitions such as those Foucault has
observed. Then we might define Der Uberman, as well,
which I dimly recall Foucault imagining. Yes, I think
definitions are part and parcel with Foucault or else we
would have far less awreness of which defintions we
need to dispense with as vague, such as "humanism,"
(What is Enlightenment?).
Eric Nelson Shook mailto:enshook@xxxxxxxxxxx
Student of Philosophy & Cultural Anthropology
"Alienation hasn't enough sense to deliberate
over circumstances. It has no sense of humor."
> 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)
David,
I understand your position, but I think one can talk
about a noun, power, which does not refer to a _thing_
which *is* something like energy, avoiding a metaphysics.
One can talk about the relationship which *is* power,
which is not a *thing* anymore than _acting_ is a *thing*,
and talk about it in the context of a _microphysics of
power_.
As far as definitions go, I don't get "hung up" on them
anymore than I get hung up on the fact that I am in
academia, a place I once swore to never sell my "soul" to.
However, for me to freely act within academia, it stands
clear that I must continuously examine what I am
involved in if I am not to lose my "soul." I think this is the
same as Foucault's requirement that his critics examine
the assumptions of their discipline so that they may more
fully engage in the dialectic. As such, I like to remain
aware of definitions since they do place limits on our
understanding or insight. If there is one thing we cannot
do, it's take the definition out of Foucault. After all, he's
looking for the limits so that we might possibly move
beyond them. This is not to say that we would move
outside of power, but that in forging new possibilities
of thought we might find new relationships of power.
But, first, we must define the limits, and I believe that
this requires new definitions such as those Foucault has
observed. Then we might define Der Uberman, as well,
which I dimly recall Foucault imagining. Yes, I think
definitions are part and parcel with Foucault or else we
would have far less awreness of which defintions we
need to dispense with as vague, such as "humanism,"
(What is Enlightenment?).
Eric Nelson Shook mailto:enshook@xxxxxxxxxxx
Student of Philosophy & Cultural Anthropology
"Alienation hasn't enough sense to deliberate
over circumstances. It has no sense of humor."