On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Peter Lang wrote:
> I read this passage with great interest. I am curious how the study of
> the micro-physics of power relates to revolutionary struggles aiming at the
> overthrow of an existing system of power. The idea of revolutionary
> overthrow is based on a different conception of power -- power as precisely
> something that a certain class possessess and that can be seized by another
> class. Are the two conceptions related in a way similar to the relationship
> between the macro-physics and micro-physics of matter, so one way of looking
> at it illuminates the other? Or are they at odds? If they coexist peacefully,
> in what areas of revolutionary struggle would the micro-model be of use?
>
>
> Peter
>
Foucault specifically signals his distaste for "Revolution" in, among
other places, "What Is Enlightenment?" (in _The Foucault Reader_). What he
has in mind, however, are the "transcendent" revolutions promised to us by
the nineteenth century.
Can we have a "non-transcendent revolution" or is transcendence an
unremovable feature of all revolutions? In _History of Sexuality_, Vol. I,
F comments (to paraphrase) that there is no single locus of great Refusal
that we should be orienting our struggles towards, rather a plurality of
resistances must be paid attention to. Each of them is a special case.
Revolutions and great ruptures can flow out of this resistance, Foucault
says, but more often you get mobile and transitory points of resistance
producing shifting cleavages in society (_HS_ I, 95-96).
So for Foucault it seems that a Revolution can certainly happen. "Great
ruptures" certainly will occur. But these Great Ruptures aren't the goal
or the "sine qua why bother" of oppositional thought and action.
Another place to look if you're interested is Foucault's little essay "On
Revolution." It's a reflection on the Iranian Revolution of '79.
--John
> I read this passage with great interest. I am curious how the study of
> the micro-physics of power relates to revolutionary struggles aiming at the
> overthrow of an existing system of power. The idea of revolutionary
> overthrow is based on a different conception of power -- power as precisely
> something that a certain class possessess and that can be seized by another
> class. Are the two conceptions related in a way similar to the relationship
> between the macro-physics and micro-physics of matter, so one way of looking
> at it illuminates the other? Or are they at odds? If they coexist peacefully,
> in what areas of revolutionary struggle would the micro-model be of use?
>
>
> Peter
>
Foucault specifically signals his distaste for "Revolution" in, among
other places, "What Is Enlightenment?" (in _The Foucault Reader_). What he
has in mind, however, are the "transcendent" revolutions promised to us by
the nineteenth century.
Can we have a "non-transcendent revolution" or is transcendence an
unremovable feature of all revolutions? In _History of Sexuality_, Vol. I,
F comments (to paraphrase) that there is no single locus of great Refusal
that we should be orienting our struggles towards, rather a plurality of
resistances must be paid attention to. Each of them is a special case.
Revolutions and great ruptures can flow out of this resistance, Foucault
says, but more often you get mobile and transitory points of resistance
producing shifting cleavages in society (_HS_ I, 95-96).
So for Foucault it seems that a Revolution can certainly happen. "Great
ruptures" certainly will occur. But these Great Ruptures aren't the goal
or the "sine qua why bother" of oppositional thought and action.
Another place to look if you're interested is Foucault's little essay "On
Revolution." It's a reflection on the Iranian Revolution of '79.
--John