Hi,
My question on authenticity and power seemed to have raised some
interesting points of view and I would like to adress some of these.
On the question of whether there might be an "essential" core self or
identity, I would posit the argument that the notion of "essentialism" is
a constructed one. Hence, there are no essences, only the idea of an
essence. The whole language/ meaning debate comes into the
picture, because we give meaning (which is constructed), to what we
desire to be essential, which is what raises the whole question of
authenticity. Who determines authenticity ? Are we in bad faith, by not
being true to ourselves, (what is being true to ourselves anyway, is it
following the call of an ethnic, racial, gender stereotype) and what are
the hegemonic (Foucauldian) implications of this ? Diana Fuss
makes an interesting argument on the issue of essentialisms. (worth checking
out). I don't have all the answers to the above questions, but I think that
they are worth asking. Foucault argues that power produces both
negative and positive elements. My question is then, is authenticity a
form of positive or negative power, because the desire for an authentic
self, is rooted within the notion of authenticity itself. In other
words, the desire to be in some way pure, and true to oneself is a form
of power, because it produces a certain mode of being, which satisfies
this craving. One such mode being Ethnicity (based on common language,
culture, religion etc) ! The problem with this is of
course something that is reminiscent of Hitler's genocide campaign, not to
mention several other recent ethnic conflicts. Authenticity (and the
desire to be Authentic), is harnessed as a tool for mass mobilisation,
appealing to subjective notions of purity, honour, etc - hence genocide,
in an attempt to negate that which does not comply with these subjective
notions.
I believe that Authenticity has serious hegemonic implications. Perhaps a
desire to be pure and true to oneself, might not be problematic in and by
itself, it is only the way in which it is politicised, that is problematic.
Which is what has sparked off the power, foucault and authenticity debate
for me. I look forward to your responses.
Regards
Lubna Nadvi
On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Gabriel Ash wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:41:49 -0800, Jayme Davis wrote:
>
> >of "bedrock." Perhaps I'm repressed or cowardly for this
> >dissatisfaction yet I can't seem to shake it. Perhaps I AM a "biped,
> >ungrateful." Nevertheless, I can't help but feel offended. Alright, I
> >admit it: technically, I'm a verb rather than a noun and there is no
> >foundation. But let me have my bedrock!!! Yes, bedrock is not
> >entirely static. It isn't fixed nor permanent. It's moving (albeit so
> >slowly relative to everything else it appears to be firm.) It's in
> >process. It's becoming. Blah, blah, blah... But let's admit that
> >some "things" move more slowly than others. So the best I can come up
> >with is an emphasis on the more viscous aspects of subjectivity. Can't
> >these extended moments of viscosity serve as pseudo-foundations?
> >Aren't they important (especially as they play in the web of power
> >relations?) If I can't have bedrock can I at least have a glacier?
>
> Your message get only half through. I like this notion of glacier, or
> moving bedrock. But I do not understand your offense, since you
> have given up the notion of 'essence or core,' the notion of speed
> seems to little for going to war on. Stressing the 'more fluid' aspects
> has two components, one is tactical, reacting to posibilities inside
> a tradition of philosophy centered on a 'core or essence', if you don't feel
> the weight of this tradition, you may still appreciate why otthers did. The second
> is ethical, emphasising what relation with
> oneself one 'ought' to cultivate, without implying that the self is not affected
> by stabilizing forces, on the contrary, the ethical point of view may be said to
> be necessary only because stabilization exists. The real question in relation
> to viscuosity seems to me viscuosity of what. what do you see as viscuos, a
> discourse of the self, a set of perceptions and dispositions to act upon them in
> certain ways, a set of practices of affecting oneself?
>
>
>
> >Lately, all the emphasis seems to be on the more fluid aspects of self.
> > Although these aspects are important and I'm not suggesting that there
> >is some sort of underlying inherent core or essence, I'm more intrigued
> >with viscosity and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this is
> >important. I would greatly appreciate it someone would address this
> >issue or would address why this shouldn't be an issue. I'm begging for
> >a glacier. Come on... someone... please?
> >
>
> -------------
> Gabriel Ash
> Notre-Dame
> -------------
>
>
>