Hmmm. Great question, Wynship. I haven't thought about this too much -
yet! - but as one who's thought a lot about Foucault and is now pursuing
an MBA, I am interested in this very question quite a bit.
I might start things off with two (related) possibilities. First, one
could make an analogy with any of the other "sciences" ("hard" or
"soft"). Earthquakes, to be sure, are not interested in seismologists;
still, seismologists are rightly interested in earthquakes. Surely that
fact does not serve as reason to indict seismology/seismologists.
Second, and perhaps more to the point, economists - supposedly -
do not influence but rather predict the economy. So their suspicion that
Foucauldians themselves have nothing to say that will or ought to
influence the market is understandable. And maybe (we?) Foucauldians
ought not to take this as constituting a problem. In fact, isn't it
precisely the kind of thing Foucault would think deserving of discussion
precisely because it is beyond the scope of (easy?) discursive change?
I don't know. I'm asking. Thanks for the opening, though. (And I hope
I've said something that is even slightly related to the problem as
you've posed it! I may have missed your point entirely.)
Peace,
Blaine
--
yet! - but as one who's thought a lot about Foucault and is now pursuing
an MBA, I am interested in this very question quite a bit.
I might start things off with two (related) possibilities. First, one
could make an analogy with any of the other "sciences" ("hard" or
"soft"). Earthquakes, to be sure, are not interested in seismologists;
still, seismologists are rightly interested in earthquakes. Surely that
fact does not serve as reason to indict seismology/seismologists.
Second, and perhaps more to the point, economists - supposedly -
do not influence but rather predict the economy. So their suspicion that
Foucauldians themselves have nothing to say that will or ought to
influence the market is understandable. And maybe (we?) Foucauldians
ought not to take this as constituting a problem. In fact, isn't it
precisely the kind of thing Foucault would think deserving of discussion
precisely because it is beyond the scope of (easy?) discursive change?
I don't know. I'm asking. Thanks for the opening, though. (And I hope
I've said something that is even slightly related to the problem as
you've posed it! I may have missed your point entirely.)
Peace,
Blaine
--