I've read book and papers by Waldby.
But that is not my point.
Waldby's point of view ist a feminist one (worked out in the
community around Kippax, Grosz, Lupton). She interprets the
biomedical discourse as a political discourse, that equates sexual
health with heterosexual manliness. Therefore men are not the
adressat of prevention programmes and this opens the question, whose
interests are represented in the public health concept of a "healthy
society".
So Waldbys perspective is - in Bruno Latour's terminology -
"assymmetrical". And that is also Latour's reproach against Foucault.
But I think that this argument doesn't work.
One of my ideas is to conect Foucault with Bachelard. Sure, there are
parallels ... but my main argumemt is that both, Foucaults archaelogy
and Bachelard's epistemology, reject the subject-object-scheme, that
both argumentations are situated in a zone between subject and
object: "phenomenon-technics" and "self-technologies".
Another idea is to conect Foucault with the actor-network-theory by
Latour. I think you can do it.
So far ...
Joerg
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998
13:16:48 +0800
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: E.Rossiter@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ned Rossiter)
> Subject: Re: Biomedical discoursive and non-discoursive practices around AIDS
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> you might check Catherine Waldby's _AIDS and the Body Politic_ (Routledge,
> 1996).
>
>
> Ned
>
>
>
>
> >I am working with a Foucauldian framework on biomedical dicourses
> >around HIV/AIDS. My aim is to demonstrate, that a Foucauldian
> >analysis is not only functioning in the field of human sciences, but
> >also in the field of "hard sciences". Do anyone know something about
> >this? Is anyone of you intersted to start a discussion about Foucault
> >and natural sciences?
>
> Ned Rossiter
> School of Communications and Multimedia
> Edith Cowan University
> 2 Bradford St
> Mt Lawley 6050
> Perth, Australia
> tel. +61-8-9370 6684
> fax. +61-8-9370 6668
> email: E.Rossiter@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
But that is not my point.
Waldby's point of view ist a feminist one (worked out in the
community around Kippax, Grosz, Lupton). She interprets the
biomedical discourse as a political discourse, that equates sexual
health with heterosexual manliness. Therefore men are not the
adressat of prevention programmes and this opens the question, whose
interests are represented in the public health concept of a "healthy
society".
So Waldbys perspective is - in Bruno Latour's terminology -
"assymmetrical". And that is also Latour's reproach against Foucault.
But I think that this argument doesn't work.
One of my ideas is to conect Foucault with Bachelard. Sure, there are
parallels ... but my main argumemt is that both, Foucaults archaelogy
and Bachelard's epistemology, reject the subject-object-scheme, that
both argumentations are situated in a zone between subject and
object: "phenomenon-technics" and "self-technologies".
Another idea is to conect Foucault with the actor-network-theory by
Latour. I think you can do it.
So far ...
Joerg
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998
13:16:48 +0800
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: E.Rossiter@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ned Rossiter)
> Subject: Re: Biomedical discoursive and non-discoursive practices around AIDS
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> you might check Catherine Waldby's _AIDS and the Body Politic_ (Routledge,
> 1996).
>
>
> Ned
>
>
>
>
> >I am working with a Foucauldian framework on biomedical dicourses
> >around HIV/AIDS. My aim is to demonstrate, that a Foucauldian
> >analysis is not only functioning in the field of human sciences, but
> >also in the field of "hard sciences". Do anyone know something about
> >this? Is anyone of you intersted to start a discussion about Foucault
> >and natural sciences?
>
> Ned Rossiter
> School of Communications and Multimedia
> Edith Cowan University
> 2 Bradford St
> Mt Lawley 6050
> Perth, Australia
> tel. +61-8-9370 6684
> fax. +61-8-9370 6668
> email: E.Rossiter@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>