Hello yall, I've been playing a passive part in the discussions so far.
However, I think this is something that I would like to imput on...
> > IS NORMATIVITY ALWAYS ABOUT POWER/NOT-POWER?
Goldstein's answer was no specifically but yes generally, then he responded
with this quote.
> "By power, I do not mean "Power" as a group of institutions and
mechanisms thaty ensure the
> subservience of the citizens of a given state. By power, I do not mean,
either. a mode of
> subjugation which, in contrast to violence, has the form of the rule.
Finally, I do not have in
> mind a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a
system whose
> effects, through successive derivations, pervade the entire social
body.... these are only the
> terminal forms power takes." p.82 hs
>
> Normativity is a terminal form of power and necessarily needs a king.
>
It is importent to note that much of Foucault's thinking came from a
background in Heidegger. Power for him is similar to Being for Heidegger.
Power is a tool to understand the way in which we as humans Be.
Domination, then, is established by a way in which people understand the
'reality' of a situation, and then accepts it, or at the very least does
not change the way of understanding. The King then represents those sets
of practices which are accepted as the guide which governs the way society
operates.
By understanding this, the quote above makes a lot more sence--power is
not, as he says, a general system of domination from one group to another,
intstead, it is and understanding of the way people in society understand
things in general around them. Hence,(to get to the point) what is normal
has everything to do with power because power is developed in the practices
which we in society acceopt and use. This, on a political level, leads the
way for those people to gain power (in the a generally accepted
non-foucaultian way).
Jon Eskelsen
However, I think this is something that I would like to imput on...
> > IS NORMATIVITY ALWAYS ABOUT POWER/NOT-POWER?
Goldstein's answer was no specifically but yes generally, then he responded
with this quote.
> "By power, I do not mean "Power" as a group of institutions and
mechanisms thaty ensure the
> subservience of the citizens of a given state. By power, I do not mean,
either. a mode of
> subjugation which, in contrast to violence, has the form of the rule.
Finally, I do not have in
> mind a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a
system whose
> effects, through successive derivations, pervade the entire social
body.... these are only the
> terminal forms power takes." p.82 hs
>
> Normativity is a terminal form of power and necessarily needs a king.
>
It is importent to note that much of Foucault's thinking came from a
background in Heidegger. Power for him is similar to Being for Heidegger.
Power is a tool to understand the way in which we as humans Be.
Domination, then, is established by a way in which people understand the
'reality' of a situation, and then accepts it, or at the very least does
not change the way of understanding. The King then represents those sets
of practices which are accepted as the guide which governs the way society
operates.
By understanding this, the quote above makes a lot more sence--power is
not, as he says, a general system of domination from one group to another,
intstead, it is and understanding of the way people in society understand
things in general around them. Hence,(to get to the point) what is normal
has everything to do with power because power is developed in the practices
which we in society acceopt and use. This, on a political level, leads the
way for those people to gain power (in the a generally accepted
non-foucaultian way).
Jon Eskelsen