Dear All,
Despite having had a long-standing interest in issues of power and space,
I've always hesitated before plunging into the literature around Foucault.
Basically, I've *felt the need* for a strong normative framework, a
framework which I find better supplied by critical theory in various
versions. However, I have dabbled with Foucault and just read a very
interesting, if oldish, article, and wondered whether I might start some
more discussion.
The article is by Nancy Fraser. It's called empirical insights and
normative confusions. It's in vol.1 of Praxis International.
Her basic argument is that although Foucault's "bracketing" of normative
questions of legitimacy proves useful in his efforts to detail the
practices of power(s), it also makes it impossible for him to say which
practices of power are good and which are bad.
She argues that the root of the problem is the fact tht Foucault fails to
distinguish between different types/forms of power.
At the end of the article she writes:
"Phenomena which are capable of being distinguished ... are simply lumped
together under his catch-all concept of power. As a result, the potential
for a broad range of normative nuances is surrendered, and the result is a
certain normative one-dimensionality" (p.286).
and, more generally
"Clearly what Foucault needs and needs desperately are normative criteria
for distinguishin acceptable from unacceptable forms of power" (p.286).
I tend to agree, but wondered if anyone on the list had any comments:
- did Fraser's article produce much reaction?
- are her points valid?
- have they been answered? (If they have, I've not seen the answer - other
than to suggest that they're not sensible/answerable/important questions).
Anyway, what do you think?
Oh, I'm well aware that this is a classic Foucault question, but I'd not
seen the suggestion that Foucault's normative weakness is due to lumping
too many practices together as power.
I look forward to some responses.
cheers,
alan
*****************************************************************************
Dr. Alan C. Hudson
University Assistant Lecturer
and
IB Director of Studies at Fitzwilliam College
Department of Geography, and Fitzwilliam College,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
CB2 3EN, CB3 0DG,
United Kingdom. United Kingdom.
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 333364 (Department - Direct line)
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 333399 (Department - General Office)
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 358354 (Home + Answerphone)
Fax: + 44 (0) 1223 333392 (Department)
E-Mail: ach1005@xxxxxxxxx
Website: http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/achhome.htm
(Currently, a dull (lack of time), slow (not my fault!), but functional
(mainly luck), website!)
*****************************************************************************
Despite having had a long-standing interest in issues of power and space,
I've always hesitated before plunging into the literature around Foucault.
Basically, I've *felt the need* for a strong normative framework, a
framework which I find better supplied by critical theory in various
versions. However, I have dabbled with Foucault and just read a very
interesting, if oldish, article, and wondered whether I might start some
more discussion.
The article is by Nancy Fraser. It's called empirical insights and
normative confusions. It's in vol.1 of Praxis International.
Her basic argument is that although Foucault's "bracketing" of normative
questions of legitimacy proves useful in his efforts to detail the
practices of power(s), it also makes it impossible for him to say which
practices of power are good and which are bad.
She argues that the root of the problem is the fact tht Foucault fails to
distinguish between different types/forms of power.
At the end of the article she writes:
"Phenomena which are capable of being distinguished ... are simply lumped
together under his catch-all concept of power. As a result, the potential
for a broad range of normative nuances is surrendered, and the result is a
certain normative one-dimensionality" (p.286).
and, more generally
"Clearly what Foucault needs and needs desperately are normative criteria
for distinguishin acceptable from unacceptable forms of power" (p.286).
I tend to agree, but wondered if anyone on the list had any comments:
- did Fraser's article produce much reaction?
- are her points valid?
- have they been answered? (If they have, I've not seen the answer - other
than to suggest that they're not sensible/answerable/important questions).
Anyway, what do you think?
Oh, I'm well aware that this is a classic Foucault question, but I'd not
seen the suggestion that Foucault's normative weakness is due to lumping
too many practices together as power.
I look forward to some responses.
cheers,
alan
*****************************************************************************
Dr. Alan C. Hudson
University Assistant Lecturer
and
IB Director of Studies at Fitzwilliam College
Department of Geography, and Fitzwilliam College,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
CB2 3EN, CB3 0DG,
United Kingdom. United Kingdom.
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 333364 (Department - Direct line)
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 333399 (Department - General Office)
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 358354 (Home + Answerphone)
Fax: + 44 (0) 1223 333392 (Department)
E-Mail: ach1005@xxxxxxxxx
Website: http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/achhome.htm
(Currently, a dull (lack of time), slow (not my fault!), but functional
(mainly luck), website!)
*****************************************************************************