>A proposition: Of these two suggestions, it is Marx's which is MORE
>'post-Nietzschean' than the book by Melossi and Pavarini. Of course a
>proposition like this is not likely to be taken seriously, although I am
>not joking .. As you are probably reading these for a specific project, I
>suppose that it wouldn't take you too far out of your way to read both of
>the suggestions (the section from Capital and the book by Melossi & Pavarini).
>Maybe others who have already read both can help us.
a personal assessment: it's impossible to read Foucault without hearing
Marx. Of course Marx is the master when it comes to the inventory of the
factory, and of capital more broadly. But I still submit that there is a
crucial difference between the critical orientation of Marx and Nietzsche,
and by extension, Foucault. This is not to say one has to "oppose" each to
the other. No need. But upon recognising the difference--upon a rigourous
reading of each--one should at least allow each to exist in the space that
they consciously marked out. I was simply asking if anyone knew of a study
of factories--or the birth of the factory in the broad technological sense
in which Foucault would have understood it--that itself existed within the
space that either Foucault or Nietzsche marked out. Simple enough request.
>To assist us with this, NB the Appendix which Melossi and Pavarini added
>in 1979 to the English translation (pp. 191ff.), in which they explicitly
>comment on the relation of their work to that of Foucault's D&P.
This is actually the least important part of their book; it's obvious from
these few pages that they have little grasp of the problematic Foucault
takes on in his history of the prison.
Could it be because Melossi and Pavarini are first and foremost from the
Marxist tradition?
postscript--a playful suggestion: Foucault once said, "One might even
wonder what difference there could ultimately be between being a historian
and being a Marxist". An interesting gem, we might do well to ponder. All
those concepts handed down; the inescapable Marx ... One wonders if in some
private moment Foucault might well have--as Baudrillard did--dream of a
kind of historical undertaking that would by some sleight-of-hand escape
the 'phantom of production' (Baudrillard's phrase), and step entirely
outside of liberalism. What would the genealogy of the factory look like
then?
Best wishes/sincerely,
______________________________________________
Ian R. Douglas | Watson Institute of International Studies
Brown University, Box 1831, Providence, RI 02912 USA
tel: 401 863-2420 fax: 401 863-2192
"The human being is an animal that requires
discipline and is capable of achieving it
through reason." Immanuel Kant
http://www.powerfoundation.org
>'post-Nietzschean' than the book by Melossi and Pavarini. Of course a
>proposition like this is not likely to be taken seriously, although I am
>not joking .. As you are probably reading these for a specific project, I
>suppose that it wouldn't take you too far out of your way to read both of
>the suggestions (the section from Capital and the book by Melossi & Pavarini).
>Maybe others who have already read both can help us.
a personal assessment: it's impossible to read Foucault without hearing
Marx. Of course Marx is the master when it comes to the inventory of the
factory, and of capital more broadly. But I still submit that there is a
crucial difference between the critical orientation of Marx and Nietzsche,
and by extension, Foucault. This is not to say one has to "oppose" each to
the other. No need. But upon recognising the difference--upon a rigourous
reading of each--one should at least allow each to exist in the space that
they consciously marked out. I was simply asking if anyone knew of a study
of factories--or the birth of the factory in the broad technological sense
in which Foucault would have understood it--that itself existed within the
space that either Foucault or Nietzsche marked out. Simple enough request.
>To assist us with this, NB the Appendix which Melossi and Pavarini added
>in 1979 to the English translation (pp. 191ff.), in which they explicitly
>comment on the relation of their work to that of Foucault's D&P.
This is actually the least important part of their book; it's obvious from
these few pages that they have little grasp of the problematic Foucault
takes on in his history of the prison.
Could it be because Melossi and Pavarini are first and foremost from the
Marxist tradition?
postscript--a playful suggestion: Foucault once said, "One might even
wonder what difference there could ultimately be between being a historian
and being a Marxist". An interesting gem, we might do well to ponder. All
those concepts handed down; the inescapable Marx ... One wonders if in some
private moment Foucault might well have--as Baudrillard did--dream of a
kind of historical undertaking that would by some sleight-of-hand escape
the 'phantom of production' (Baudrillard's phrase), and step entirely
outside of liberalism. What would the genealogy of the factory look like
then?
Best wishes/sincerely,
______________________________________________
Ian R. Douglas | Watson Institute of International Studies
Brown University, Box 1831, Providence, RI 02912 USA
tel: 401 863-2420 fax: 401 863-2192
"The human being is an animal that requires
discipline and is capable of achieving it
through reason." Immanuel Kant
http://www.powerfoundation.org