On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Alan C. Hudson wrote:
> To John's comments:
>
> I . . .
> carefully avoided claiming that I expected to find any fundamental basis
> for (my) normative criteria. (although, if pressed, I would go for
> communication).
But to be normative, normative criteria have to have a fundamental basis,
don't they? Or at least don't they have to be grounded in this way when
we're talking about redeeming validity claims when it comes to morality?
>
> I didn't think that Fraser, in the 1981 article at least, said that some
> forms of power are good and some bad. She said, I thought, that
> differentiating between forms of power is a necessary step in being
> able to say what effects of power are bad and good. Maybe it isn't a
> necessary step? What's the alternative then?
>
> I'm sorry to ask this obvious and maybe tedious question but what do you
> mean by "bad" in your phrase?
By "bad" I mean an exercise or kind of power that diminishes human
potential and/or violates agreements. But it seems to me it is authors
like Fraser who want to retain this distinction between good and bad forms
of power -- though of course we're just talking, and the casual terms
"good and bad" are inadequate to the task at hand!
>
> > Or take bureaucratic forms of power. Are we going to say, perhaps after a
> > reading of Weber, that bureaucracies are "bad" forms of power? Instead of
> > dividing up the world Mani-like into "good" and "bad", socialism versus
> > capitalism, human versus inhuman, and so on, Foucault wants to talk about
> > the reality of power configurations on the ground and the kinds of moves
> > they permit, hinder, or disallow.
>
> OK, this makes sense to me. But, couldn't one have the latter and the
> former ways of talking about power? They don't seem obviously
> contradictory to me, but then it is late in the day.
I agree, they are not contradictory on the surface. We can talk about the
reality of power configurations on the ground without in any logically
contradictory way recusing ourselves from discussing broader issues of
good and bad forms of power. Foucault's reason for avoiding the latter is
historical rather than logical. See "Foucault responds to Sartre" in
_Foucault Live_, where F says:
"There was the great period of contemporary philosophy, that of Sartre and
Merleau-Ponty, in which a philosophical text . . . finally had to tell you
what life, death, and sexuality were, if God existed or not, what liberty
consisted of, what one had to do in political life, how to behave in
regard to others, and so forth." (_FL_, p. 35)
This tradition of course belonged to more than just Sartre and
Merleau-Ponty, but included the whole tradition, discussed by F, of the
"universal" as opposed to the "specific" intellectual. The whole attempt
by philosophers and intellectuals to provide overarching normative grounds
for action or inaction seemed like a failed project to F.
>
> Thanks again for your response John. I might add that I'm actually
> interested in this and am not out for a bit of Foucault bashing for the
> sake of it. I very much hope that this conversation won't turn into that
> sort of thing.
Well, if you can't do a little bit of Foucault bashing on the Foucault
discussion list, where exactly is one supposed to turn? Still, I admit I'm
happy to learn that your intellectual interests take a different turn.
>
> cheers,
> alan
>
> PS: John - what's your book called? I might check it out.
_Foucault's Discipline: The Politics of Subjectivity_, published by Duke
University Press, 1997.
--John
>
> *****************************************************************************
> 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!)
> *****************************************************************************
>
> To John's comments:
>
> I . . .
> carefully avoided claiming that I expected to find any fundamental basis
> for (my) normative criteria. (although, if pressed, I would go for
> communication).
But to be normative, normative criteria have to have a fundamental basis,
don't they? Or at least don't they have to be grounded in this way when
we're talking about redeeming validity claims when it comes to morality?
>
> I didn't think that Fraser, in the 1981 article at least, said that some
> forms of power are good and some bad. She said, I thought, that
> differentiating between forms of power is a necessary step in being
> able to say what effects of power are bad and good. Maybe it isn't a
> necessary step? What's the alternative then?
>
> I'm sorry to ask this obvious and maybe tedious question but what do you
> mean by "bad" in your phrase?
By "bad" I mean an exercise or kind of power that diminishes human
potential and/or violates agreements. But it seems to me it is authors
like Fraser who want to retain this distinction between good and bad forms
of power -- though of course we're just talking, and the casual terms
"good and bad" are inadequate to the task at hand!
>
> > Or take bureaucratic forms of power. Are we going to say, perhaps after a
> > reading of Weber, that bureaucracies are "bad" forms of power? Instead of
> > dividing up the world Mani-like into "good" and "bad", socialism versus
> > capitalism, human versus inhuman, and so on, Foucault wants to talk about
> > the reality of power configurations on the ground and the kinds of moves
> > they permit, hinder, or disallow.
>
> OK, this makes sense to me. But, couldn't one have the latter and the
> former ways of talking about power? They don't seem obviously
> contradictory to me, but then it is late in the day.
I agree, they are not contradictory on the surface. We can talk about the
reality of power configurations on the ground without in any logically
contradictory way recusing ourselves from discussing broader issues of
good and bad forms of power. Foucault's reason for avoiding the latter is
historical rather than logical. See "Foucault responds to Sartre" in
_Foucault Live_, where F says:
"There was the great period of contemporary philosophy, that of Sartre and
Merleau-Ponty, in which a philosophical text . . . finally had to tell you
what life, death, and sexuality were, if God existed or not, what liberty
consisted of, what one had to do in political life, how to behave in
regard to others, and so forth." (_FL_, p. 35)
This tradition of course belonged to more than just Sartre and
Merleau-Ponty, but included the whole tradition, discussed by F, of the
"universal" as opposed to the "specific" intellectual. The whole attempt
by philosophers and intellectuals to provide overarching normative grounds
for action or inaction seemed like a failed project to F.
>
> Thanks again for your response John. I might add that I'm actually
> interested in this and am not out for a bit of Foucault bashing for the
> sake of it. I very much hope that this conversation won't turn into that
> sort of thing.
Well, if you can't do a little bit of Foucault bashing on the Foucault
discussion list, where exactly is one supposed to turn? Still, I admit I'm
happy to learn that your intellectual interests take a different turn.
>
> cheers,
> alan
>
> PS: John - what's your book called? I might check it out.
_Foucault's Discipline: The Politics of Subjectivity_, published by Duke
University Press, 1997.
--John
>
> *****************************************************************************
> 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!)
> *****************************************************************************
>