At 06:22 PM 2/7/97 -0800, Pablo Ortellado wrote:
<snip>
> .... on one hand his books represent an extensive work in showing
>the historicity and power contamination of what was then considered
>essential, universal and neutral; on the other hand his criticism
>pointed to some kind of freedom that seems related to a surpassing of
>those contingent and power related situations -- surpassing that was
>possible by the very knowledge of its contingency and power
>contamination.
>I would like very much to hear comments on those issues.
>Pablo Ortellado
>
I've wondered something along similiar lines; does Foucault's work fall prey
to his own criticism that he refers to as the "speaker's benefit" in HS I?
In other words, of what use to us are his critiques and analyses? I would
quess that in some manner they "empower" the reader, since knowledge is
power. Yet, this becomes a very relative notion, as the point of his
analysis is to emphasize how much we are entangled in subtle networks of power.
These issues are particularly pertinent to me, as a psychotherapist. HS I
contains a critique of psychotherapy. Yet, I would argue that there are
parallels between what a psychotherapist does in working with an individual
and what Foucault does on a larger scale. If one concludes that the outcome
of Foucault's work is something that is useful for the reader, then I think
that there is a basis for making a similiar argument about psychchotherapy,
despite the criticism that Foucault brings to bear on this sort of project.
John Sproule
<snip>
> .... on one hand his books represent an extensive work in showing
>the historicity and power contamination of what was then considered
>essential, universal and neutral; on the other hand his criticism
>pointed to some kind of freedom that seems related to a surpassing of
>those contingent and power related situations -- surpassing that was
>possible by the very knowledge of its contingency and power
>contamination.
>I would like very much to hear comments on those issues.
>Pablo Ortellado
>
I've wondered something along similiar lines; does Foucault's work fall prey
to his own criticism that he refers to as the "speaker's benefit" in HS I?
In other words, of what use to us are his critiques and analyses? I would
quess that in some manner they "empower" the reader, since knowledge is
power. Yet, this becomes a very relative notion, as the point of his
analysis is to emphasize how much we are entangled in subtle networks of power.
These issues are particularly pertinent to me, as a psychotherapist. HS I
contains a critique of psychotherapy. Yet, I would argue that there are
parallels between what a psychotherapist does in working with an individual
and what Foucault does on a larger scale. If one concludes that the outcome
of Foucault's work is something that is useful for the reader, then I think
that there is a basis for making a similiar argument about psychchotherapy,
despite the criticism that Foucault brings to bear on this sort of project.
John Sproule