Idea writes:
>My question to this entire discussion is that if one takes F. as a
>postmodernist
>,or as someone who has heavily influenced postmodernism,
> then to deal in F. in a way that has one central point is
>to defeat the point.
There are many layers of interpretation to be found within his work
(Dumezil said "there are a thousand Foucault's), but generally speaking,
one of the consistent concerns throughout his thought is the question and
problems related to the subject, even in his works on power, though more
implicitly perhaps than M&C and HS2&3. I believe he considered his work a
"slalom".
>Let us see how F. correlates and
>mutates inside of his own works and not
>on the outside... at least for the moment.
>I see F. , to be quite honest, as a man who had a fetish about
>power. That is by his own defention he leanred nothing
>from power ,but do to his fascnitation he learned
>much much much more by tracing the ways
>power ,and it's devinats and disciples,
>came to our present perception. He never
>really grasped what power is but he was
>able to hold power by undifferniating
>knowledge and power into one.
I don't know if he had a "fetish" for power.I think the introduction of
"power" into his thought was meant as a corrective to many of the
difficulties of his archaeology, without abandoning the prior method.
Basically, his describing language as autonomous and conditioning human
subjects as a sort of impotent residue undermined his own theory. The
introduction of "power" in his thought is more like a interpretive tool
which he uses to reveal that the human subject is never entirely trapped
within power relations so it is never able to act. On the contrary, by
showing how power/knowledge are linked in complex and subtle ways, he is
able to show how modern socio-historical practices generate subjectified
objects. Yet, these socio-historical practices can only function through
human subjectivity (what he calls "capillary", how actions affect actions,
what people don't know is "what they do does," etc.) I agree that he never
could tell us what power is, but I don't think that was his concern. In
any case, he is more concerned with notions such as "power", "discourse",
"subjectivity", etc., and how they function for us, upon us, and through us
today, rather than reveal their hidden ontological truth, which he would
leave for others to do.
Sean
>My question to this entire discussion is that if one takes F. as a
>postmodernist
>,or as someone who has heavily influenced postmodernism,
> then to deal in F. in a way that has one central point is
>to defeat the point.
There are many layers of interpretation to be found within his work
(Dumezil said "there are a thousand Foucault's), but generally speaking,
one of the consistent concerns throughout his thought is the question and
problems related to the subject, even in his works on power, though more
implicitly perhaps than M&C and HS2&3. I believe he considered his work a
"slalom".
>Let us see how F. correlates and
>mutates inside of his own works and not
>on the outside... at least for the moment.
>I see F. , to be quite honest, as a man who had a fetish about
>power. That is by his own defention he leanred nothing
>from power ,but do to his fascnitation he learned
>much much much more by tracing the ways
>power ,and it's devinats and disciples,
>came to our present perception. He never
>really grasped what power is but he was
>able to hold power by undifferniating
>knowledge and power into one.
I don't know if he had a "fetish" for power.I think the introduction of
"power" into his thought was meant as a corrective to many of the
difficulties of his archaeology, without abandoning the prior method.
Basically, his describing language as autonomous and conditioning human
subjects as a sort of impotent residue undermined his own theory. The
introduction of "power" in his thought is more like a interpretive tool
which he uses to reveal that the human subject is never entirely trapped
within power relations so it is never able to act. On the contrary, by
showing how power/knowledge are linked in complex and subtle ways, he is
able to show how modern socio-historical practices generate subjectified
objects. Yet, these socio-historical practices can only function through
human subjectivity (what he calls "capillary", how actions affect actions,
what people don't know is "what they do does," etc.) I agree that he never
could tell us what power is, but I don't think that was his concern. In
any case, he is more concerned with notions such as "power", "discourse",
"subjectivity", etc., and how they function for us, upon us, and through us
today, rather than reveal their hidden ontological truth, which he would
leave for others to do.
Sean