At 12:55 PM 11/17/98 +0000, Alex wrote:
>My name is alex. I am new here. I want to follow on with Daniel's
>idea on the reception of Foucault's ideas within Laclau-Mouffe'a
>approach. I agree with you in principle but I think that the latter
>thinkers construct their whole project of Theory of hegemony
>precicely in order to go beyond Foucaultian political project.
My question here is about the function of theory of hegemony in
Laclau and Mouffe's project? Putting the theory of hegemony as a
stepstone for going beyond Foucault does not mean that the latter
does not imply it? It all depends on how you locate Foucault? Foucault
does not need to theorise hegemony and thus bring that theory out of the
absence? Reality is positive, and the local will bring to the fore the
necessity of such hegemony as a type of manifestation of power.
In
>this sense Foucault has not an insight on hegemony, that is, on the
>way of how to construct power, I mean, not only to see power as
>productive but also as a production. Productiuon that is always
>collective and is done through an extension of the logics of
>equivalence and difference in a social space. For Laclau this is the
>very definition of what is political.
The production you are referring is always implied in the concept of power
as articulated by Foucault. Being is politics and this is the reason
why power cannot be pinned down except in consequence of what sort of logics
are taking place.
>A difference ( and a problem that I think remains to be solved): the
>duality of realm of the discursive/non-discursive in Foucault
>(mainly in The Archaeology) which Laclau and Mouffe criticizes in
>their book HSS. I would say that the Foucault maintain the idea of
>the non-discursive as a quasi-trascendental in order to support then
>an ethical stance. The non-discursive is suffering, hanger, that, in
>his latter works will ground his idea of "rapport a soi".
>Alex.
>
Yes, it is right to see that Foucault maintains the idea of non-discursive as
quasi-transcendental to support an ethical stance. Nietzsche is there
provisional
for the idea of will to power. The autonomy of the discursive in AK,
opposite to
many interpretation, did not depart from the quasi-transcedentalism, which is a
non-discursive. The ethical stance is the selective machine that makes the
discursive
in light of the non-discrusive problematic.
amd
>My name is alex. I am new here. I want to follow on with Daniel's
>idea on the reception of Foucault's ideas within Laclau-Mouffe'a
>approach. I agree with you in principle but I think that the latter
>thinkers construct their whole project of Theory of hegemony
>precicely in order to go beyond Foucaultian political project.
My question here is about the function of theory of hegemony in
Laclau and Mouffe's project? Putting the theory of hegemony as a
stepstone for going beyond Foucault does not mean that the latter
does not imply it? It all depends on how you locate Foucault? Foucault
does not need to theorise hegemony and thus bring that theory out of the
absence? Reality is positive, and the local will bring to the fore the
necessity of such hegemony as a type of manifestation of power.
In
>this sense Foucault has not an insight on hegemony, that is, on the
>way of how to construct power, I mean, not only to see power as
>productive but also as a production. Productiuon that is always
>collective and is done through an extension of the logics of
>equivalence and difference in a social space. For Laclau this is the
>very definition of what is political.
The production you are referring is always implied in the concept of power
as articulated by Foucault. Being is politics and this is the reason
why power cannot be pinned down except in consequence of what sort of logics
are taking place.
>A difference ( and a problem that I think remains to be solved): the
>duality of realm of the discursive/non-discursive in Foucault
>(mainly in The Archaeology) which Laclau and Mouffe criticizes in
>their book HSS. I would say that the Foucault maintain the idea of
>the non-discursive as a quasi-trascendental in order to support then
>an ethical stance. The non-discursive is suffering, hanger, that, in
>his latter works will ground his idea of "rapport a soi".
>Alex.
>
Yes, it is right to see that Foucault maintains the idea of non-discursive as
quasi-transcendental to support an ethical stance. Nietzsche is there
provisional
for the idea of will to power. The autonomy of the discursive in AK,
opposite to
many interpretation, did not depart from the quasi-transcedentalism, which is a
non-discursive. The ethical stance is the selective machine that makes the
discursive
in light of the non-discrusive problematic.
amd