I previously wrote:
> >All of his talk about power seems to indicate that
> >once we understand the relationships, then we
> >will recognize the continuity. I think that his task
> >has been to show how we became objects, and
> >to not cry about this, but rather, recognize that
> >the subject is somewhat of a dead point.
To which Sean responded:
> A dead point when it doesn't recognize itself as produced
> as a historical object. Without this recognition, the
> subject will blindly reproduce those practices which
> have been internalized or "inscribed" upon it, yet it
> thinks that it acts according to its own free thought.
Well, I'm reading your point here with a rather limited
interpretation of it. In other words, it isn't that I'm being
disagreeable, but that I'm not being giving for the sake of
seeing if we both see this the same way.
So, may I stipulate that his point was: the subject will
always have things internalized and inscribed upon it.
It doesn't matter what we do. THis is the state of power
relationships. THe idea is to become highly critical in
order to see this as a constant thing which must be
kept in mind at all times. But then, this is where I
start to think of Foucault as believing that objectivity
is the answer, and that he is kind of a reformulation
of certain Hegelian concepts about freedom.
I admit of course, that I could be really, quite fiercely
attacked on this thought!
> I take Foucault as showing us how we are
> produced as subjectified objects within specific
> social, historical and cultural practices. Yet, what
> is required of subjects in reproducing these practices,
> also enables them to resist some practices which
> become problematic.
Yes, this is where Foucault makes a great deal of use
of Gramsci, I think. It's a hegemonical type of
relationship. (Also see Genovese, but I don't recall
the full title. "something..*River* flows or runs...
something." Perhaps "The River that runs downihill?"
sorry don't have time to reference it rightly. Genovese
shows how emancipation was facilitated by certain
facts about the south US slave/master relationship
which actually admitted, underneath it all, to a human
quality in the slaves rather than a total denial of their
being. Thereby, the slaves took advantage of this in
highly subtle ways which later developed into freedom.)
A last note here. Sean, I responded to another post of
yours while having forgotten this exchange. Therefore,
it may seem in this other post like I am repeating myself,
or even disagreeing. But I am just looking towards
clarification of my reading of what you said, and I guess,
restating much of what was already said in the post
you are responding to here. ....I guess what we are
actually doing here is honing in on what we think about
Foucault. Which is highly helpful!
Cheers! and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
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."
> >All of his talk about power seems to indicate that
> >once we understand the relationships, then we
> >will recognize the continuity. I think that his task
> >has been to show how we became objects, and
> >to not cry about this, but rather, recognize that
> >the subject is somewhat of a dead point.
To which Sean responded:
> A dead point when it doesn't recognize itself as produced
> as a historical object. Without this recognition, the
> subject will blindly reproduce those practices which
> have been internalized or "inscribed" upon it, yet it
> thinks that it acts according to its own free thought.
Well, I'm reading your point here with a rather limited
interpretation of it. In other words, it isn't that I'm being
disagreeable, but that I'm not being giving for the sake of
seeing if we both see this the same way.
So, may I stipulate that his point was: the subject will
always have things internalized and inscribed upon it.
It doesn't matter what we do. THis is the state of power
relationships. THe idea is to become highly critical in
order to see this as a constant thing which must be
kept in mind at all times. But then, this is where I
start to think of Foucault as believing that objectivity
is the answer, and that he is kind of a reformulation
of certain Hegelian concepts about freedom.
I admit of course, that I could be really, quite fiercely
attacked on this thought!
> I take Foucault as showing us how we are
> produced as subjectified objects within specific
> social, historical and cultural practices. Yet, what
> is required of subjects in reproducing these practices,
> also enables them to resist some practices which
> become problematic.
Yes, this is where Foucault makes a great deal of use
of Gramsci, I think. It's a hegemonical type of
relationship. (Also see Genovese, but I don't recall
the full title. "something..*River* flows or runs...
something." Perhaps "The River that runs downihill?"
sorry don't have time to reference it rightly. Genovese
shows how emancipation was facilitated by certain
facts about the south US slave/master relationship
which actually admitted, underneath it all, to a human
quality in the slaves rather than a total denial of their
being. Thereby, the slaves took advantage of this in
highly subtle ways which later developed into freedom.)
A last note here. Sean, I responded to another post of
yours while having forgotten this exchange. Therefore,
it may seem in this other post like I am repeating myself,
or even disagreeing. But I am just looking towards
clarification of my reading of what you said, and I guess,
restating much of what was already said in the post
you are responding to here. ....I guess what we are
actually doing here is honing in on what we think about
Foucault. Which is highly helpful!
Cheers! and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
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."