>The question in my mind that provided the jumping off point for these
>thoughts is concerned with whether one can do anything to resist or counter
>these normalizing and subjectifying processes of bio-power. Does the
>process of bringing these process of bio-Power to light in any fashion give
>an individual more autonomy or freedom of choice, for example? I would=
like
>to think that Foucault found it worthwhile to investigate and write about
>these topics, because he believed that this did more than merely reinforce
>the the kind of bio-power that he was describing. Looking at his project=
in
>this fashion, I see parallels to questions about insight-oriented
>psychotherapy, e.g., is insight helpful for people trying to change their
>behavior?
Dear John,
I can see now your point. I think it is VERY interesting. I was
thinking wether from the relationship you pointed to (between Foucault's
idea of freedom and psychoanalysis), we can think of something like
Castoriadis' idea of autonomy.=20
For Castoriadis, autonomy is not determined as opposed to heteronomy
in a vulgar sense (restriction vs. unrestriction -- that's the idea of
autonomy for Andr=E9 Gorz!). So, for example in psychoanalysis, you can't=
say
the conscious thought has to take the place of the unconscious (that would
be the vulgar sense of heteronomy I just mentioned). What you ought to say
is that the conscious thought has to be in a critical relation to the
unconscious. In other words, it should not supress the unconscious, but
relate to it critically, judging it as a datum. (all this in L'Institution
Imaginaire de la Societ=E9, chapter II)
Well, maybe we can think of Foucault's power determinations as some
kind of heteronomy that can be made conscious (for example by his books) and
then be treaten as data to be critically judged allowing some kind of
freedom (understood as autonomy?). Do you think something like this make any
sense?
Sincerely,
Pablo Ortellado=20
>thoughts is concerned with whether one can do anything to resist or counter
>these normalizing and subjectifying processes of bio-power. Does the
>process of bringing these process of bio-Power to light in any fashion give
>an individual more autonomy or freedom of choice, for example? I would=
like
>to think that Foucault found it worthwhile to investigate and write about
>these topics, because he believed that this did more than merely reinforce
>the the kind of bio-power that he was describing. Looking at his project=
in
>this fashion, I see parallels to questions about insight-oriented
>psychotherapy, e.g., is insight helpful for people trying to change their
>behavior?
Dear John,
I can see now your point. I think it is VERY interesting. I was
thinking wether from the relationship you pointed to (between Foucault's
idea of freedom and psychoanalysis), we can think of something like
Castoriadis' idea of autonomy.=20
For Castoriadis, autonomy is not determined as opposed to heteronomy
in a vulgar sense (restriction vs. unrestriction -- that's the idea of
autonomy for Andr=E9 Gorz!). So, for example in psychoanalysis, you can't=
say
the conscious thought has to take the place of the unconscious (that would
be the vulgar sense of heteronomy I just mentioned). What you ought to say
is that the conscious thought has to be in a critical relation to the
unconscious. In other words, it should not supress the unconscious, but
relate to it critically, judging it as a datum. (all this in L'Institution
Imaginaire de la Societ=E9, chapter II)
Well, maybe we can think of Foucault's power determinations as some
kind of heteronomy that can be made conscious (for example by his books) and
then be treaten as data to be critically judged allowing some kind of
freedom (understood as autonomy?). Do you think something like this make any
sense?
Sincerely,
Pablo Ortellado=20