John writes:
>Does
>F think that people who employ power don't know what they're doing? I
>would agree with you that actors cannot predict unintended consequences of
>what they do, but that doesn't mean the particular operation of power they
>are engaged in is somehow obscure to them, right?
>
They think they know what they're doing. But, to use one of F's more
rhetorical plays, "they don't know what they do does." Anyone who
exercises power over another or a group knows what s/he is doing, i.e.,
knows the intended effects, the intended program. What is not known is how
these effects will affect other actions, how they merge, collide, combine
with other actions in an unforeseen way that could have disastrous
consequences. Now of course this is not an argument against the exercise
of power, since some, perhaps most may never result in disastrous effects.
Power is not always bad. However, in the context of the discussion of the
newsgroup, I think Foucault would find the implementatation of censorship
(which could not be a single action, but rather a series of ongoing
practices whose objective is to monitor, exclude, silence) highly
problematic, since this practice is very similar to the exclusionary
practices proposed in the potential discussions of the newsgroup itself.
>Coming out of the above point, I don't think we can use the claim
>"exercises of power sometimes or even regularly end up producing
>unintended effects" as an argument against exercises of power. That's why
>I don't think we should collectively raise our Fdian eyebrow at the
>possibility that surveillance techniques et al would be employed against
>Nazis on Usenet.
>
>It seems to me that a better term than "unintended" here is "ambiguous."
>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the good thing about "ambiguous" is that
>the dichotomous good/bad categorization is avoided. Surveillance is a
>tool, not a technique that has domination encoded into its structure, such
>that anyone using it is automatically committed to sucking the life out of
>people. Surveillance can be a helpful tool in teaching someone how to type
>or play the piano. There may even be some anti-social behaviors that can
>be corrected with its help! Surveillance can also be a key ingredient for
>normalizing a population into an unthinking acceptance of the social
>world. Like all tools, surveillance can be used for this or that; thus,
>its effects are "ambiguous."
But is censorship helpful in this case? Is it the only option? Or is it
just reactionary?, This discussion of internet surveillance fits into the
larger debates over the possibility of internet control and social control,
and the increasing security industry over the last few years. On the
surface, the security industry may seem a welcome "protection", but at what
price do these new techniques enter into our lives?
>
>One point the above underlines is that F was not a member of the
>Frankfurt School. He does not believe, as Marcuse, Horkheimer and Adorno
>do, that the critique of domination meant the critique of technique or of
>rationality.
I agree. But I think Foucualt, like the Frankfurters, is interested in the
practical effects, the ambiguous effects, unforeseen at the time of their
inception. His study of the history of the prison is one example of this.
In one interview he claims that ha he known of the Frankfurters' work
earlier in his career he would have spent more time commenting on their
work. But yes he does not wish to abandon rationality.
Sean
>Does
>F think that people who employ power don't know what they're doing? I
>would agree with you that actors cannot predict unintended consequences of
>what they do, but that doesn't mean the particular operation of power they
>are engaged in is somehow obscure to them, right?
>
They think they know what they're doing. But, to use one of F's more
rhetorical plays, "they don't know what they do does." Anyone who
exercises power over another or a group knows what s/he is doing, i.e.,
knows the intended effects, the intended program. What is not known is how
these effects will affect other actions, how they merge, collide, combine
with other actions in an unforeseen way that could have disastrous
consequences. Now of course this is not an argument against the exercise
of power, since some, perhaps most may never result in disastrous effects.
Power is not always bad. However, in the context of the discussion of the
newsgroup, I think Foucault would find the implementatation of censorship
(which could not be a single action, but rather a series of ongoing
practices whose objective is to monitor, exclude, silence) highly
problematic, since this practice is very similar to the exclusionary
practices proposed in the potential discussions of the newsgroup itself.
>Coming out of the above point, I don't think we can use the claim
>"exercises of power sometimes or even regularly end up producing
>unintended effects" as an argument against exercises of power. That's why
>I don't think we should collectively raise our Fdian eyebrow at the
>possibility that surveillance techniques et al would be employed against
>Nazis on Usenet.
>
>It seems to me that a better term than "unintended" here is "ambiguous."
>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the good thing about "ambiguous" is that
>the dichotomous good/bad categorization is avoided. Surveillance is a
>tool, not a technique that has domination encoded into its structure, such
>that anyone using it is automatically committed to sucking the life out of
>people. Surveillance can be a helpful tool in teaching someone how to type
>or play the piano. There may even be some anti-social behaviors that can
>be corrected with its help! Surveillance can also be a key ingredient for
>normalizing a population into an unthinking acceptance of the social
>world. Like all tools, surveillance can be used for this or that; thus,
>its effects are "ambiguous."
But is censorship helpful in this case? Is it the only option? Or is it
just reactionary?, This discussion of internet surveillance fits into the
larger debates over the possibility of internet control and social control,
and the increasing security industry over the last few years. On the
surface, the security industry may seem a welcome "protection", but at what
price do these new techniques enter into our lives?
>
>One point the above underlines is that F was not a member of the
>Frankfurt School. He does not believe, as Marcuse, Horkheimer and Adorno
>do, that the critique of domination meant the critique of technique or of
>rationality.
I agree. But I think Foucualt, like the Frankfurters, is interested in the
practical effects, the ambiguous effects, unforeseen at the time of their
inception. His study of the history of the prison is one example of this.
In one interview he claims that ha he known of the Frankfurters' work
earlier in his career he would have spent more time commenting on their
work. But yes he does not wish to abandon rationality.
Sean