Stephen D'Arcy wrote:
>
> Malgosia writes that, in effect, he is not convinced that "Preface to
> Transgression is a an ethical or political text. John replies that it
> is. But note how John's case rests on quotations from a text written
> "two decades later." I agree that the text from the mid-1980's is an
> ethical/political text. But it is a mistake, I think, to read
> Foucault's political concerns (of his post-archaeological period --
> 1971-84) back into texts written when he was not, in short, a very
> political person, and had still not shown any interest in ethics
> (which only begins in the late 1970's or so). Am I wrong about this?
> Does anyone read The Order of Things or Birth of the Clinic or The
> Archaeology of Knowledge as containing some open or hidden political
> agenda? If so, why? In either case, shouldn't we admit that his
> treatment of ethics and politics before the 1970's was -- if it
> existed at all -- not very concrete or sophisticated?
>
> Isn't the political uselessness of archaeology partly the motivation
> for moving on to genealogy, and isn't the ethical silence of genealogy
> what necessitated the eventual thematization of ethics in the 80's?
Sorry if I am repeating anything, I've been away for the past week and
have not followed the debate.
I am a bit surprised to hear you say this Stephen. I don't think I
would really agree. for instance I think it is noteworthy that you
don't mention Madness and Civilization, a work which was pivotal in
creating a critical stance to the historiography of psychiatry. Ask
psychiatrists whether they thought it was apolitical and I doubt if
they'd say 'yes'. As far as BOTC is concerned that's a little more
difficult, perhaps the nature of the subject was just not conducive,
though even here I would say that it is possible to see it as a critique
of medical practice. OT I think clearly operates as a critique, F. is
hailing the 'end of Man' precisely because he sees it as an ultimately
oppressive project. I would tend towards the view of the shift from
archaeology (or rather towards genealogy which isn't exactly the
abandonment of archaeology) as more borne out of the theoretical
difficulties which archaeology was beginning to encounter, i.e. around
its apparent lack of movement and diversity, etc. I've never read it as
a political failure. I'd be interested to know what you base this on,
but I don't think it is accurate to say that Foucault was not a
political person during this period.
> > Moreover, it was written in 1963, when Foucault
> > was not especially interested in political theory or practice.
But F.'s private life suggests this not to be the case as does M&C as I
have already suggested. I take it you mean that his politics was not
'apparent', but this I think is a tactical device on F.'s part, he tries
to slip his critique in like a Trojan horse so that you will alter your
perceptions without them ever having been 'challenged'. This is what I
take to mean when he describes some of his works as 'experience books',
i.e. that they will deprive certain taken for granted beliefs and
practices of their self-evidence and thus undermine them without ever
actually confronting them directly.
Best wishes
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Malgosia writes that, in effect, he is not convinced that "Preface to
> Transgression is a an ethical or political text. John replies that it
> is. But note how John's case rests on quotations from a text written
> "two decades later." I agree that the text from the mid-1980's is an
> ethical/political text. But it is a mistake, I think, to read
> Foucault's political concerns (of his post-archaeological period --
> 1971-84) back into texts written when he was not, in short, a very
> political person, and had still not shown any interest in ethics
> (which only begins in the late 1970's or so). Am I wrong about this?
> Does anyone read The Order of Things or Birth of the Clinic or The
> Archaeology of Knowledge as containing some open or hidden political
> agenda? If so, why? In either case, shouldn't we admit that his
> treatment of ethics and politics before the 1970's was -- if it
> existed at all -- not very concrete or sophisticated?
>
> Isn't the political uselessness of archaeology partly the motivation
> for moving on to genealogy, and isn't the ethical silence of genealogy
> what necessitated the eventual thematization of ethics in the 80's?
Sorry if I am repeating anything, I've been away for the past week and
have not followed the debate.
I am a bit surprised to hear you say this Stephen. I don't think I
would really agree. for instance I think it is noteworthy that you
don't mention Madness and Civilization, a work which was pivotal in
creating a critical stance to the historiography of psychiatry. Ask
psychiatrists whether they thought it was apolitical and I doubt if
they'd say 'yes'. As far as BOTC is concerned that's a little more
difficult, perhaps the nature of the subject was just not conducive,
though even here I would say that it is possible to see it as a critique
of medical practice. OT I think clearly operates as a critique, F. is
hailing the 'end of Man' precisely because he sees it as an ultimately
oppressive project. I would tend towards the view of the shift from
archaeology (or rather towards genealogy which isn't exactly the
abandonment of archaeology) as more borne out of the theoretical
difficulties which archaeology was beginning to encounter, i.e. around
its apparent lack of movement and diversity, etc. I've never read it as
a political failure. I'd be interested to know what you base this on,
but I don't think it is accurate to say that Foucault was not a
political person during this period.
> > Moreover, it was written in 1963, when Foucault
> > was not especially interested in political theory or practice.
But F.'s private life suggests this not to be the case as does M&C as I
have already suggested. I take it you mean that his politics was not
'apparent', but this I think is a tactical device on F.'s part, he tries
to slip his critique in like a Trojan horse so that you will alter your
perceptions without them ever having been 'challenged'. This is what I
take to mean when he describes some of his works as 'experience books',
i.e. that they will deprive certain taken for granted beliefs and
practices of their self-evidence and thus undermine them without ever
actually confronting them directly.
Best wishes
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx