>From Dag Moldenhagen.
In The Imperative of health Deborah Luptoin refers ti a centrla
paradiox in Foucauldian theory which has occupied my mind for a long
time. It refers to the relationshiop between subjectivity and
resistance. Sje cites Foucualt 1980 a :
"Mastery and wareness of one's own body can be ackquired only
through the effect of an investment in the power in the body......all
of this belongs to the pathway leading to the desire of one's own
body, by way of the insistent , persistent, meticulous work of power
on the bodies of children or soldiers, the healthy bodies. BUT ONE
POWERR PRODUCES THIS EFFECT , THERE INVEITABLY EMERGE THE
RESPONDING CLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIONS, THOSE OF ONE'S OWN BODY AGAINST
POWER, of health against the economic systems, of pleasure againgst
the moral norms of sexuality, marriage, decency. Suddenly , what had
made power string becomes used to attect it. POWER, AFTENR INVESTING
ITSELF IN THE BODY , FINS ITSELF EXPOSED TO A COUNTER-ATTACK IN THE
SAME BODY.
Then compare a citation in 1977 b:
The Body - and everything that touches it; diet, climate , and soil -
is the domain of descent. The body maintains the stigmata of past
experiences and also give rise to desires, failing and errors.
---The body is the inscribed surface of events, .the, locus of a
dissociated Self...and a volume in perpetual disintegration.
Genealogy , as an analyssi of descent , is thus situated within
the articulation of the body and history, its task is to expose A
BODY TOTALLY IMPRINTED BY HISTORY and the processes of histoiry's
destruction of the body.
Lupton asserts that the first saying reflect that there are "
extra-discurive or non-discursive sources of RESISTANCE to external
governmentality stratgeies. But what avioutr the seocns saying: here
is no "extrdisciursive sources of resistance.
How shall I understand the relationship betwenn those two saying. Are
they contradictory or not..
Greeting
Dag