There was no exegetical comment on Foucault involved, merely one on how to go
about using the difference humanism/antihumanism. Foucault may well have
written on 'le sujet', so what? I can agree, Foucault didn't say that no
human animals were minding their business in this world, but that's not my
point. Hence, your question can be turned into mine, what is a subject?
A subject is a carrier, a problem being that when a subject is 'suspected' to
carry a system, what is it then that carries the subject? In a sociological
context the subject is the actor is the human being, individually or
collectively doing society. What is it then, that is acting the actor? Some
fundament from the Beyond? Not telling you much about the details (e.g. the
problem of 'part/whole' turning up when people are 'part' of the social
'whole') I can tell you that one may well 'suspect' society doing society all
by its own, no subject-carrier being involved, human beings just like all the
rest of the planetary stuff merely being one of those material garantees for
the social order, not existing within it but in its environment - with the
peculiarity of course that society itself is a garantee to let psychic
propensities maintain their ruts, which is not the case with fysical or
organical ones. In a sociological context then, an antihumanistic observation
strategy is a strategy that does not suppose human beings within society.
That would be like describing society as a mixture of membranes, physical
forces, some chemistry and a lot of consciousness. More on that may looked
for in Erving Goffman (if one focusses on the productive side of his
ambiguities concerning self, personality etc...) and most definitely in
Niklas Luhmann. One may look for how F's discourse/discursive formations, not
being grounded on a consciousness, do or do not interlace with all of that
stuff, and make use of such a constructed field of a variety of
antihumanistic proposals in either direction. I don't care wright now how
anyone would do that, I just suggesting sth, that the 'no subject, no
humanism' grid may be a nice program to distinguish humanism/antihumanism for
us. This may or may not be helpful to write things on behalf of Foucault, but
it may be useful for further dwelling upon it in a variety coming contexts.
What is it then, that is not a simple as that? It is, quite simply, that it
is not any ones fate to close oneself in into the conceptual boundaries of
Foucaults theory as Foucault himself has left them behind. The frame or
relevance here was clearly a sociological one, on how to render society
tell-a-story-aboutable. If it is not as simple for philosophy as it is for
sociology, that I can only observe that the philosophical frame of relevance
is a lot more problematic.
Joeri Vancoillie.
about using the difference humanism/antihumanism. Foucault may well have
written on 'le sujet', so what? I can agree, Foucault didn't say that no
human animals were minding their business in this world, but that's not my
point. Hence, your question can be turned into mine, what is a subject?
A subject is a carrier, a problem being that when a subject is 'suspected' to
carry a system, what is it then that carries the subject? In a sociological
context the subject is the actor is the human being, individually or
collectively doing society. What is it then, that is acting the actor? Some
fundament from the Beyond? Not telling you much about the details (e.g. the
problem of 'part/whole' turning up when people are 'part' of the social
'whole') I can tell you that one may well 'suspect' society doing society all
by its own, no subject-carrier being involved, human beings just like all the
rest of the planetary stuff merely being one of those material garantees for
the social order, not existing within it but in its environment - with the
peculiarity of course that society itself is a garantee to let psychic
propensities maintain their ruts, which is not the case with fysical or
organical ones. In a sociological context then, an antihumanistic observation
strategy is a strategy that does not suppose human beings within society.
That would be like describing society as a mixture of membranes, physical
forces, some chemistry and a lot of consciousness. More on that may looked
for in Erving Goffman (if one focusses on the productive side of his
ambiguities concerning self, personality etc...) and most definitely in
Niklas Luhmann. One may look for how F's discourse/discursive formations, not
being grounded on a consciousness, do or do not interlace with all of that
stuff, and make use of such a constructed field of a variety of
antihumanistic proposals in either direction. I don't care wright now how
anyone would do that, I just suggesting sth, that the 'no subject, no
humanism' grid may be a nice program to distinguish humanism/antihumanism for
us. This may or may not be helpful to write things on behalf of Foucault, but
it may be useful for further dwelling upon it in a variety coming contexts.
What is it then, that is not a simple as that? It is, quite simply, that it
is not any ones fate to close oneself in into the conceptual boundaries of
Foucaults theory as Foucault himself has left them behind. The frame or
relevance here was clearly a sociological one, on how to render society
tell-a-story-aboutable. If it is not as simple for philosophy as it is for
sociology, that I can only observe that the philosophical frame of relevance
is a lot more problematic.
Joeri Vancoillie.