Yes the darkness makes all the difference, and that is properly the
locus for debate and analysis. Some sort of coordinated activity is
inevitable and (I think) desirable. Asking ethical and political
questions requires us to ask what sort of dispersion and co-ordination
we want. Are markets invariably panoptical? Hayek, of course, says
"no." Maybe the question is not markets vs. non-markets, but rather what
sort of markets (or other power dispersions) allow best for the
cultivation of resistances and subjugated knowledges. That, at least to
me, would make paying attention to Hayek and other market theorists
worth the trouble. This is only to suggest a direction for thought. I am
not offering any conclusions.
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Larry Chappell wrote:
>
> >Doing such an analysis would require overcoming the untenable dichotomy
> >between freedom and power. How could there be powerless freedom.
>
> There can't be, which is why Henry Ford's famous dismissal of the necessity
> of unions - "any worker is free to negotiate a contract with me" - is so
> laughable.
>
> >I
> >suspect that the affinity between Foucault and Hayek can be located, at
> >least partly, in Foucault's attempt to defend and cultivate "subjugated
> >knowledges." These are local knowledges (cf. Geertz) that create sites
> >of resistance against normalizing tendencies. Foucault could also
> >appreciate Hayek's insistence on the impossibility of universal and
> >central information in the hands of the planner combined with his
> >insistence that markets nevertheless provide for coordinated action --
> >albeit with a darker interpretation of coordination.
>
> Well that darkness makes all the difference, doesn't it? Why does an
> apparently decentralized decision making process contribute to an extremely
> hierarchal, centralized kind of power? Examining that kind of power might
> reveal just how particular individuals and social formations maintain power
> over time - the relations of the capillary structures that Foucaultians are
> so obsessed with with the larger vessels and central organ that also
> constitute the circulatory system.
>
> Doug
locus for debate and analysis. Some sort of coordinated activity is
inevitable and (I think) desirable. Asking ethical and political
questions requires us to ask what sort of dispersion and co-ordination
we want. Are markets invariably panoptical? Hayek, of course, says
"no." Maybe the question is not markets vs. non-markets, but rather what
sort of markets (or other power dispersions) allow best for the
cultivation of resistances and subjugated knowledges. That, at least to
me, would make paying attention to Hayek and other market theorists
worth the trouble. This is only to suggest a direction for thought. I am
not offering any conclusions.
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Larry Chappell wrote:
>
> >Doing such an analysis would require overcoming the untenable dichotomy
> >between freedom and power. How could there be powerless freedom.
>
> There can't be, which is why Henry Ford's famous dismissal of the necessity
> of unions - "any worker is free to negotiate a contract with me" - is so
> laughable.
>
> >I
> >suspect that the affinity between Foucault and Hayek can be located, at
> >least partly, in Foucault's attempt to defend and cultivate "subjugated
> >knowledges." These are local knowledges (cf. Geertz) that create sites
> >of resistance against normalizing tendencies. Foucault could also
> >appreciate Hayek's insistence on the impossibility of universal and
> >central information in the hands of the planner combined with his
> >insistence that markets nevertheless provide for coordinated action --
> >albeit with a darker interpretation of coordination.
>
> Well that darkness makes all the difference, doesn't it? Why does an
> apparently decentralized decision making process contribute to an extremely
> hierarchal, centralized kind of power? Examining that kind of power might
> reveal just how particular individuals and social formations maintain power
> over time - the relations of the capillary structures that Foucaultians are
> so obsessed with with the larger vessels and central organ that also
> constitute the circulatory system.
>
> Doug