Re: Foucault and the body

In a message dated 8/19/98 6:53:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx writes:

<< Never heard of an ideology that didn't require participation. And just how
overt is the convention around a modest little word like, say, "I"?
>>
Well, if we take the most benign of ideological institutions, schools, I
suppose you could say that students "participate." But, they only participate
according to their so-called position in the classroom or cohort and depending
upon their 'assessed' abilities. Much the same as in being selected for
admission into a nursery school, a private school, a high school, a college, a
graduate school, etc. I don't believe that this is really voluntary in an
absolute sense, it is a cultural practice, a legal norm to a certain extent, a
social system. People are socialized into reality, the world, their culture,
etc... Ways of being, thinking, speaking, etc. are learned and considered
natural, second nature, and so on. The way each person is from a
dispositional or personality or characterological viewpoint has been
determined by a myriad of circumstances that they had no choice in
determining. People are socialized into an ideology but they do not
participate in the ideology!, rather they participate in the cultural
practices unknowing of any such thing as ideology. I don't mean to say that
all ideologies are false consciousness, just belief systems that often have a
pejorative (or worse) connotation. There are historical motives for enacting
a purposeful life which can only truly be owned through a critical reflection
and which would probably require a significant personal crisis.

Often, during socialization, the rule system unfolds and the rules of the
cultural practices slowly becomes known. I suppose that participation in the
ideology of education may occur in a genuine voluntary manner but probably not
with a full knowledge of how the system works, what the consequences are, why
the structure is thus and so, etc.
But, eventually, a pretty thorough knowledge can be formed.

I don't believe this is the case in some belief systems, namely criminal
enterprises, religious institutions, and political treatises. The
nonnormative foundations of criminal
enterprises clearly marks any justification for participation as ignorance,
and hence covert, as in unknown to the individual. The lack of empirical or
logical foundations for religions clearly mark them as fronts for economic and
social status groupings. The problem of disorder and enforcement underlying
any political system, as well as the problems of consensus and difference
clearly mark them as covert demands for conformity. Feeling the brunt of a
social system's security operations or police is hardly considered
participation in my view. It is a matter of the better of two evils, but I do
believe that
discursive formations involves an autonomous decision or choice to participate
that ideologies do not permit.

As for the ideological underpinnings of language, like a Sapir-Whorf kind of
outlook is impossible to effect. Even if it is the case, there is no way to
change the language in any significant manner. Perhaps, individuals can
become linguists and learn to understand their language or language in general
more directly and so less unconsciously, but obviously there are limits. All
words have multiple meanings, there is no escaping from it.
Developing our metaphysical knowledge is the only practical solution to
becoming
better informed and more sensitive, but too many humans are encumbered by
their genetic dispositions and their heredity! At this point, whichever way I
go: hope for the future or doomsday, I am at an ideological limit in which I
do not care to participate any further :)

Partial thread listing: