Comrade,
Marx is all over this in his chapter on Commodities in _Capital_. In a
very real sense it is also present in the _Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844_ (EPM) and _The German Ideology_ (GI).
I think one way to think about _Discipline and Punish_ is in line with the
idea of reification. Remember in GI Marx rejects the notion of a division
of labor that has us spending our whole lives trapped in one kind of
activity. He contrasts to that his little serious joke about life in a
communist society, where the division of labor no longer reigns and
individuals are free to be fishers in the morning, poets in the afternoon,
and critics after dinner. We all know that Foucault in DP thinks the goal
of the disciplines developed in the nineteenth century was to reduce human
beings as political agents and augment their value as productive forces.
That is, by reinforcing the division of labor, by turning the peasant into
the soldier and nothing but the soldier, the child into the student and
nothing but, the criminal into the prisoner, and so on, what else was
going on but the 'thingification' of persons that Marx complains about
with regard to humans in EPM and GI, and of the products of our labor in
_Capital_?
"Because of the division of labor," to paraphrase Marx in GI, "each man is
given an exclusive sphere of activity from which he cannot escape, and
which is forced on him. He must be a hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or
critical critic. And he must remain so if he is to survive. But in
communist society, no one is given an exclusive sphere of activity but can
be accomplished in any branch he wishes. Such a society regulates the
general production and makes it possible for me to do one thing today and
another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, criticize
after dinner, but without becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or
critic." What Marx objects to is "this fixation of social activity, the
consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power over
us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, and bringing
to naught our calculations."
And isn't Foucault worried about the same kind of "fixation of social
activity" produced by the disciplines? The consolidation of what we
ourselves produce into an objective power over us?
So yes, comrade, I think there is definitely some merit in your
comparison!
--John
On Wed, 13 May 1998 reutherr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Comrades:
> I need some help on the notion of "reification." Is this a
> Lucaksian term, or does Marx write about it as well? I'm wondering if
> Foucault ever mentions it. I'm assuming his position on it might be
> similar to his critique of ideology, i.e. there is always something less
> truthful about that which becomes "reified," and that the
> unified/unifying subject is the circuit within which this all leads back
> to in some totalizing way. Any ideas?
>
> Rich X
>
^><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><
< John S. Ransom, Political Science; Denny 107; 245-1716 <
< Prelaw Adviser; Bologna Coordinator >
< Office Hours: Monday 11am-Noon, Tuesday, 10-11am, >
< Thursday, 2-3pm >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Marx is all over this in his chapter on Commodities in _Capital_. In a
very real sense it is also present in the _Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844_ (EPM) and _The German Ideology_ (GI).
I think one way to think about _Discipline and Punish_ is in line with the
idea of reification. Remember in GI Marx rejects the notion of a division
of labor that has us spending our whole lives trapped in one kind of
activity. He contrasts to that his little serious joke about life in a
communist society, where the division of labor no longer reigns and
individuals are free to be fishers in the morning, poets in the afternoon,
and critics after dinner. We all know that Foucault in DP thinks the goal
of the disciplines developed in the nineteenth century was to reduce human
beings as political agents and augment their value as productive forces.
That is, by reinforcing the division of labor, by turning the peasant into
the soldier and nothing but the soldier, the child into the student and
nothing but, the criminal into the prisoner, and so on, what else was
going on but the 'thingification' of persons that Marx complains about
with regard to humans in EPM and GI, and of the products of our labor in
_Capital_?
"Because of the division of labor," to paraphrase Marx in GI, "each man is
given an exclusive sphere of activity from which he cannot escape, and
which is forced on him. He must be a hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or
critical critic. And he must remain so if he is to survive. But in
communist society, no one is given an exclusive sphere of activity but can
be accomplished in any branch he wishes. Such a society regulates the
general production and makes it possible for me to do one thing today and
another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, criticize
after dinner, but without becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or
critic." What Marx objects to is "this fixation of social activity, the
consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power over
us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, and bringing
to naught our calculations."
And isn't Foucault worried about the same kind of "fixation of social
activity" produced by the disciplines? The consolidation of what we
ourselves produce into an objective power over us?
So yes, comrade, I think there is definitely some merit in your
comparison!
--John
On Wed, 13 May 1998 reutherr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Comrades:
> I need some help on the notion of "reification." Is this a
> Lucaksian term, or does Marx write about it as well? I'm wondering if
> Foucault ever mentions it. I'm assuming his position on it might be
> similar to his critique of ideology, i.e. there is always something less
> truthful about that which becomes "reified," and that the
> unified/unifying subject is the circuit within which this all leads back
> to in some totalizing way. Any ideas?
>
> Rich X
>
^><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><
< John S. Ransom, Political Science; Denny 107; 245-1716 <
< Prelaw Adviser; Bologna Coordinator >
< Office Hours: Monday 11am-Noon, Tuesday, 10-11am, >
< Thursday, 2-3pm >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^