On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, malgosia askanas wrote:
> But what I am saying is that I don't think that Foucault is about "power"
> in _this_ sense, of "holding" political power in the present system.
ummm . . . well, ok, maybe foucault wouldn't really care whether we
elected bill or bob. but isn't "political power in the present
system" still one aspect of power? what is it about that kind of
discussion, or interest, that suddenly makes foucault irrelevant?
or to put it in another way, what charged word did i use which suddenly
made it inappropriate for me to claim an interest in his critique?
all i said was that the issue of power is "especially urgent" to those
with less "power", in the sense you seem to find vulgar. i never said
"only urgent to them and no one else". so what's the point of closing
off the possibility of his ideas being meaningful in "_this_ sense" (or
anyone's sense)?
> It's not about getting a piece of the pie, about height of salary or
> voting or equitable access to Harvard University. Rather, it's about
> how we -- each of us -- produce these concepts of "power", "criminality",
> "work", "science", "sanity", "education", how we produce our "truths"
> about them, and how we -- as individuals and as a society -- are produced
> by them in turn. Where have these notions been? Who and what is served by
> them? Foucault, I think, is not about a more equitable access to the
> goodies of the present system, but about producing a completely different
> system, which means producing ourselves differently.
if you really think the only thing at stake in my perspective is "the
goodies of the present system" then maybe i should apologize - i'm new to
this list, so maybe somewhere along the line i unwittingly violated one
of its laws of discourse.
i think i understand, and if i do, then i certainly agree with, what you
mean by "each of us produces power". just b/c i come from a mundane
perspective doesn't mean i would insist on the innocence of my perspective
w/r/2 power. if i did, then i'd just be binding myself more tightly into
that dialectic in which all of us are trapped, which prevents us from
going ahead and producing that "completely different system". when i
describe us as trapped, i mean materially, not necessarily theoretically,
altho maybe i myself am still trapped both ways. maybe you can help me
with that, if that's so reactionary. but for now, i'd still argue for
the usefulness of saying "we all produce power, but not all in the same
ways or the same quantities." if you think that is an unjust application
of foucault, then choose any one of the items on that list you mentioned -
science, criminality, education, whatever - and try explaining to me how
foucault's discussion of it makes my concerns about how power is made in
the "current system" irrelevant or beside the point. i've already given
examples of what "criminality" and "science" mean to me - what do they
mean to you?
Sigmund Shen
> But what I am saying is that I don't think that Foucault is about "power"
> in _this_ sense, of "holding" political power in the present system.
ummm . . . well, ok, maybe foucault wouldn't really care whether we
elected bill or bob. but isn't "political power in the present
system" still one aspect of power? what is it about that kind of
discussion, or interest, that suddenly makes foucault irrelevant?
or to put it in another way, what charged word did i use which suddenly
made it inappropriate for me to claim an interest in his critique?
all i said was that the issue of power is "especially urgent" to those
with less "power", in the sense you seem to find vulgar. i never said
"only urgent to them and no one else". so what's the point of closing
off the possibility of his ideas being meaningful in "_this_ sense" (or
anyone's sense)?
> It's not about getting a piece of the pie, about height of salary or
> voting or equitable access to Harvard University. Rather, it's about
> how we -- each of us -- produce these concepts of "power", "criminality",
> "work", "science", "sanity", "education", how we produce our "truths"
> about them, and how we -- as individuals and as a society -- are produced
> by them in turn. Where have these notions been? Who and what is served by
> them? Foucault, I think, is not about a more equitable access to the
> goodies of the present system, but about producing a completely different
> system, which means producing ourselves differently.
if you really think the only thing at stake in my perspective is "the
goodies of the present system" then maybe i should apologize - i'm new to
this list, so maybe somewhere along the line i unwittingly violated one
of its laws of discourse.
i think i understand, and if i do, then i certainly agree with, what you
mean by "each of us produces power". just b/c i come from a mundane
perspective doesn't mean i would insist on the innocence of my perspective
w/r/2 power. if i did, then i'd just be binding myself more tightly into
that dialectic in which all of us are trapped, which prevents us from
going ahead and producing that "completely different system". when i
describe us as trapped, i mean materially, not necessarily theoretically,
altho maybe i myself am still trapped both ways. maybe you can help me
with that, if that's so reactionary. but for now, i'd still argue for
the usefulness of saying "we all produce power, but not all in the same
ways or the same quantities." if you think that is an unjust application
of foucault, then choose any one of the items on that list you mentioned -
science, criminality, education, whatever - and try explaining to me how
foucault's discussion of it makes my concerns about how power is made in
the "current system" irrelevant or beside the point. i've already given
examples of what "criminality" and "science" mean to me - what do they
mean to you?
Sigmund Shen