An interesting point has been raised here about the use (and abuse) of
Foucault's work, and bringing it to bear on different problems, such as
safer-sex campaigns, and into different contexts, the case of Rwanda. I
personally attempt to work with Foucault, to place him into different
constellations of thought, in order to see what kinds of problems can be
posed. Still, I have encountered and continue to encounter those who would
prefer to stop with the tool-box that has been provided, to create a kind of
discourse analysis that refuses to question its own conditions of
production. I find this approach to be worrying, especially given Foucault's
own warnings about simple application without problematization. I suppose
the question I'd like to contribute to this discussion is this: what is at
stake when application is at stake? Or, better, is it possible to think in,
by and through Foucault's work without closing off the possibilities and
impossibilities of problematization? And, further, what is at stake in
asking questions of Foucault's work, of extending, supplementing and
problematizing the work?
Thanks, Liz, for opening up this area of discussion.
>
>Using Foucault seems to be a worthy and, undoubtedly, noble goal to be
>working towards. I find that with Foucault though, his actual "work" (I
>dare not say theory) is not as clear as his essays and interviews. Being
>still, at this point, not very well versed in the whole notion of a
>"Foucauldian perspective", I will give my two cents worth and hope that I
>am somewhat coherent.
>
>Last Sept. or Oct., I think someone tossed out the idea of Foucauldian
>approach as offering a set of "tools" which we can use to reveal all those
>horrible "invisible strategies of normalization". My question still
>remains: are people ready for this kind of "revelation". In the tradition
>of docile bodies, i assume that docile minds must also be necessary in
>order to have the kind of repressive hypothesis Foucault desires for us to
>resist.
>
>I am also having some difficulty figuring out this whole notion of
>subject/object and how we manage to be be "both" and neither. Is it
>Foucault's contention that we are made to believe we are "subjects" when
>we are really "objects" of this network of power relations?
>
>Sorry for ranting and rambling. I wish you all a happy and prosperous
>new year and look forward to what some of you have to say to my
>"dilemmas".
>
>Regards,
>
>Clara Ho
>
>The University of Calgary
>
Foucault's work, and bringing it to bear on different problems, such as
safer-sex campaigns, and into different contexts, the case of Rwanda. I
personally attempt to work with Foucault, to place him into different
constellations of thought, in order to see what kinds of problems can be
posed. Still, I have encountered and continue to encounter those who would
prefer to stop with the tool-box that has been provided, to create a kind of
discourse analysis that refuses to question its own conditions of
production. I find this approach to be worrying, especially given Foucault's
own warnings about simple application without problematization. I suppose
the question I'd like to contribute to this discussion is this: what is at
stake when application is at stake? Or, better, is it possible to think in,
by and through Foucault's work without closing off the possibilities and
impossibilities of problematization? And, further, what is at stake in
asking questions of Foucault's work, of extending, supplementing and
problematizing the work?
Thanks, Liz, for opening up this area of discussion.
>
>Using Foucault seems to be a worthy and, undoubtedly, noble goal to be
>working towards. I find that with Foucault though, his actual "work" (I
>dare not say theory) is not as clear as his essays and interviews. Being
>still, at this point, not very well versed in the whole notion of a
>"Foucauldian perspective", I will give my two cents worth and hope that I
>am somewhat coherent.
>
>Last Sept. or Oct., I think someone tossed out the idea of Foucauldian
>approach as offering a set of "tools" which we can use to reveal all those
>horrible "invisible strategies of normalization". My question still
>remains: are people ready for this kind of "revelation". In the tradition
>of docile bodies, i assume that docile minds must also be necessary in
>order to have the kind of repressive hypothesis Foucault desires for us to
>resist.
>
>I am also having some difficulty figuring out this whole notion of
>subject/object and how we manage to be be "both" and neither. Is it
>Foucault's contention that we are made to believe we are "subjects" when
>we are really "objects" of this network of power relations?
>
>Sorry for ranting and rambling. I wish you all a happy and prosperous
>new year and look forward to what some of you have to say to my
>"dilemmas".
>
>Regards,
>
>Clara Ho
>
>The University of Calgary
>