Matthew King is right to foreground the terms "cultivate" and "best."
Both are problematic. Were I submitting an article for review, I may
have avoided them. Nevertheless, some comments are perhaps in order.
"Cultivation" is subjugation. I make the garden, the Bonsai tree, or
whatever an object of power; though there is within these gardens
resistances that are not cultivated by me. Since the original post was
about the illusion and possibility of freedom; perhaps I need to vary my
metaphor. Within a garden, I can leave room for all sorts of unplanned
growths -- or I can manage the garden to be as surprise free as
possible. I do not know which garden is "best" to at least recognize
that they are different.
There is another organic metaphor that may work better than
"cultivation" when trying to talk about freedom. Wilderness is precisely
uncultivated, and it is left (relatively) free from our interference.
Allowing subjugated knowledges and practices freedom involves finding
ways to leave them alone. I also think William Connolly's attempt to
exploit Deleuze and Guattari's distinction between "arboreal" and
"rhizomatic" growth is promising. The "best" gardener may just let the
stuff spread randomly.
"Best" is a perfectly awful word to use in this thread. I hereby retract
it, and promise to seek ritual self flagellation at the nearest leather
bar. While avoiding superlatives, I would not avoid comparatives. Best,
no; better, yes.
The original post asked if we can analyze the illusory character of
market freedom. The answer is: Not if it is the midnight in which all
cows are black. We need (without necessarily being able to produce) some
way to distinguish more or less free situations. If ALL we can say is
power produces resistance, and resistance produces new subordinations --
we might as well have a drink and stop worrying about the critique of
economic regimes and comparative political economy. Of course we can
resist -- but that does not sound like much fun.
Foucault, in the later stages of his writing, was desperately trying to
make a positive contribution to ethical and political discourse. Maybe
that was a dead end, but thinking about what we might want to mean by
freedom is a good place to begin.
M.A. King wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 May 1998, Larry Chappell wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't think it really makes sense to talk about an arrangement of "power
> dispersions" which allows for "cultivation of resistances and subjugated
> knowledges": that which is cultivated is not subjugated and can't be a
> resistance, no? And the opposite of whatever is cultivated is
> subjugated: "after all, is it not perhaps the case that these fragments
> of genealogies are no sooner brought to light, that the particular
> elements of the knowledge that one seeks to disinter are no sooner
> accredited and put into circulation, than they run the risk of
> recodification, recolonization?" (Foucault, "Two Lectures").
>
> Of course, I've snipped the word "best" from Larry Chappel's post; I'm not
> sure how much difference that makes (which isn't to say I don't think it
> makes a difference; I'm really not sure). Any arrangement of power
> relations involves resistances; any deployment of power/knowledge implies
> subjugated knowledges counter to it. I'm not sure whether, on Foucault's
> terms, it is possible to say that one arrangement allows for more
> resistances or is friendlier (while not being on the whole friendly) to
> subjugated knowledges than another.
>
> On the other hand, in "Sexual Choice, Sexual Act", Foucault writes: "the
> important question ... is ... whether the system of constraints in which
> society functions leaves individuals the liberty to transform the system."
> I don't quite know what to make of that; it seems to me that, on
> Foucault's terms, the possibility of transforming the system always
> exists--indeed, any system of power relations implies its own
> possibilities for resistance and transformation.
>
> Again, these are things I'm very unsure about; I'd be glad to hear what
> others think.
>
> ----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster University----
> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
> -----------------------------(Michel Foucault)--------------------------------
Both are problematic. Were I submitting an article for review, I may
have avoided them. Nevertheless, some comments are perhaps in order.
"Cultivation" is subjugation. I make the garden, the Bonsai tree, or
whatever an object of power; though there is within these gardens
resistances that are not cultivated by me. Since the original post was
about the illusion and possibility of freedom; perhaps I need to vary my
metaphor. Within a garden, I can leave room for all sorts of unplanned
growths -- or I can manage the garden to be as surprise free as
possible. I do not know which garden is "best" to at least recognize
that they are different.
There is another organic metaphor that may work better than
"cultivation" when trying to talk about freedom. Wilderness is precisely
uncultivated, and it is left (relatively) free from our interference.
Allowing subjugated knowledges and practices freedom involves finding
ways to leave them alone. I also think William Connolly's attempt to
exploit Deleuze and Guattari's distinction between "arboreal" and
"rhizomatic" growth is promising. The "best" gardener may just let the
stuff spread randomly.
"Best" is a perfectly awful word to use in this thread. I hereby retract
it, and promise to seek ritual self flagellation at the nearest leather
bar. While avoiding superlatives, I would not avoid comparatives. Best,
no; better, yes.
The original post asked if we can analyze the illusory character of
market freedom. The answer is: Not if it is the midnight in which all
cows are black. We need (without necessarily being able to produce) some
way to distinguish more or less free situations. If ALL we can say is
power produces resistance, and resistance produces new subordinations --
we might as well have a drink and stop worrying about the critique of
economic regimes and comparative political economy. Of course we can
resist -- but that does not sound like much fun.
Foucault, in the later stages of his writing, was desperately trying to
make a positive contribution to ethical and political discourse. Maybe
that was a dead end, but thinking about what we might want to mean by
freedom is a good place to begin.
M.A. King wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 May 1998, Larry Chappell wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't think it really makes sense to talk about an arrangement of "power
> dispersions" which allows for "cultivation of resistances and subjugated
> knowledges": that which is cultivated is not subjugated and can't be a
> resistance, no? And the opposite of whatever is cultivated is
> subjugated: "after all, is it not perhaps the case that these fragments
> of genealogies are no sooner brought to light, that the particular
> elements of the knowledge that one seeks to disinter are no sooner
> accredited and put into circulation, than they run the risk of
> recodification, recolonization?" (Foucault, "Two Lectures").
>
> Of course, I've snipped the word "best" from Larry Chappel's post; I'm not
> sure how much difference that makes (which isn't to say I don't think it
> makes a difference; I'm really not sure). Any arrangement of power
> relations involves resistances; any deployment of power/knowledge implies
> subjugated knowledges counter to it. I'm not sure whether, on Foucault's
> terms, it is possible to say that one arrangement allows for more
> resistances or is friendlier (while not being on the whole friendly) to
> subjugated knowledges than another.
>
> On the other hand, in "Sexual Choice, Sexual Act", Foucault writes: "the
> important question ... is ... whether the system of constraints in which
> society functions leaves individuals the liberty to transform the system."
> I don't quite know what to make of that; it seems to me that, on
> Foucault's terms, the possibility of transforming the system always
> exists--indeed, any system of power relations implies its own
> possibilities for resistance and transformation.
>
> Again, these are things I'm very unsure about; I'd be glad to hear what
> others think.
>
> ----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster University----
> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
> -----------------------------(Michel Foucault)--------------------------------