Steve D'Arcy writes:
<<Foucault's point is not that I don't have power, nor that it is not
reproduced over time, but only that it cannot be understood by looking at
me alone or my relationship to the student alone, without taking into
account the network of agents who align their conduct with mine and THEREBY
constitute my relationship to the student as a power relationship.>>
Sure. That sounds about right. But Foucault still can't (or doesn't want
to) explain what gives rise to the 'network of agents' through which power
gets exercised.
I think your reading of Foucault with regard to how Foucault might explain
power of capital is fine. I'll check out the Wartenberg piece you
mentioned. But your reading only confirms that Foucault can be read in a
manner that is consistent with Marx. On this point, both JanMohamed and I
agree with you. (And you would know this if you read the JanMohamed piece
or my previous posts.) However, the point is that Foucault doesn't (or
doesn't want to) explain the generation of what JanMohamed calls 'surplus
power' and how and why 'surplus power' crystalizes in the manner it has--in
the hands of the ruling class + the governing elite.
Yoshie
<<Foucault's point is not that I don't have power, nor that it is not
reproduced over time, but only that it cannot be understood by looking at
me alone or my relationship to the student alone, without taking into
account the network of agents who align their conduct with mine and THEREBY
constitute my relationship to the student as a power relationship.>>
Sure. That sounds about right. But Foucault still can't (or doesn't want
to) explain what gives rise to the 'network of agents' through which power
gets exercised.
I think your reading of Foucault with regard to how Foucault might explain
power of capital is fine. I'll check out the Wartenberg piece you
mentioned. But your reading only confirms that Foucault can be read in a
manner that is consistent with Marx. On this point, both JanMohamed and I
agree with you. (And you would know this if you read the JanMohamed piece
or my previous posts.) However, the point is that Foucault doesn't (or
doesn't want to) explain the generation of what JanMohamed calls 'surplus
power' and how and why 'surplus power' crystalizes in the manner it has--in
the hands of the ruling class + the governing elite.
Yoshie