Me again,
You can also go the Birmingham School Route (in the mid-late 1970's). The
seminal work being, _Policing the Crisis, Mugging the State_ Hall, Stuart
et al.
Others will be able to offer you a less narrow trajectory.
Regards--
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:14:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert F Carley <carley+@xxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: illegality and intolerability
Hello Eric-
Depending on your interest, there is an ostensible geneaology set off by
Foucault and Deleuze in their discussion, "Intellectuals and Power" in
_Language, counter-memory, practice: selected essays and interviews_.
Translated from the French by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon.
>From (against) this, Spivak launches her seminal, "Can the Subaltern
Speak?" which leads to the School of Subaltern Studies (Gupta, Spivak).
Others in this Vein, James C. Scott (_Weapons of the Weak_); Basch et al.
_Nations Unbound_.
Categorically, this should take you through the subaltern school into
discussions of hegemony, conscent, etc. Or, at least that is where it
would take me.
Best of luck,
R
________________
Robert F. Carley
Graduate Student
Department of English
University of Pittsburgh
carley+@xxxxxxxx
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 embuck1@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I guess I did not say enough about these two concepts to draw any response.
> Foucault is often accused of critiquing power and institutions, but of never
> providing a constructive alternative. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault
> very briefly discusses illegality, almost in a tone of advocating deliberate
> illegality to overcome the application of disciplinary correction. I say
> "almost" because I am not yet sure he did advocate such an approach. In an
> interview in Power/Knowledge, he mentions the Gulag question in terms of
> intolerability. Is this an inchoate tool for resistance? This is the sort
> of thing I am trying to work out. Has anyone seen any work on these areas?
> Can you point me to other mentions of them in Foucault?
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>
You can also go the Birmingham School Route (in the mid-late 1970's). The
seminal work being, _Policing the Crisis, Mugging the State_ Hall, Stuart
et al.
Others will be able to offer you a less narrow trajectory.
Regards--
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:14:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert F Carley <carley+@xxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: illegality and intolerability
Hello Eric-
Depending on your interest, there is an ostensible geneaology set off by
Foucault and Deleuze in their discussion, "Intellectuals and Power" in
_Language, counter-memory, practice: selected essays and interviews_.
Translated from the French by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon.
>From (against) this, Spivak launches her seminal, "Can the Subaltern
Speak?" which leads to the School of Subaltern Studies (Gupta, Spivak).
Others in this Vein, James C. Scott (_Weapons of the Weak_); Basch et al.
_Nations Unbound_.
Categorically, this should take you through the subaltern school into
discussions of hegemony, conscent, etc. Or, at least that is where it
would take me.
Best of luck,
R
________________
Robert F. Carley
Graduate Student
Department of English
University of Pittsburgh
carley+@xxxxxxxx
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 embuck1@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I guess I did not say enough about these two concepts to draw any response.
> Foucault is often accused of critiquing power and institutions, but of never
> providing a constructive alternative. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault
> very briefly discusses illegality, almost in a tone of advocating deliberate
> illegality to overcome the application of disciplinary correction. I say
> "almost" because I am not yet sure he did advocate such an approach. In an
> interview in Power/Knowledge, he mentions the Gulag question in terms of
> intolerability. Is this an inchoate tool for resistance? This is the sort
> of thing I am trying to work out. Has anyone seen any work on these areas?
> Can you point me to other mentions of them in Foucault?
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>