bob
well, my response was based on various sources..and the interviews w/
foucault are the best.. Try reading the interviews in THE FOUCAULT READER
edited by paul rabinow and POWER/KNOWLEDGE edited by Joseph Rouse.. To be
honest, all i've read actually BY foucault are a few of his essays. I've yet
to read any of his books. But i have read various sources on foucault.
loren
At 04:43 PM 12/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Loren,
>
>As someone who is not as familiar with Foucault as he might be, I'm
>wondering about some sources for some of your comments in response to
>Anders. Or are your comments derived from the general "geist"/gist of
>Foucault?
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>>>Well I certainly agree. But Isn't it rather problematic to break something
>>>down in order to build up something new? Won't new understandings and
>>>categorizations allways imply new inclusions and exclusions?
>>
>>Well, thats certainly the problematic foucault enjoys. Its not his
>>contention that one can escape relations of power in the process or the
>>finality of self-subjectification. To establish ones own subject is to
>>consistantly employ strategies of resistance and transgression. Foucault
>>compares such strategies as creating art--in which the process and/or
>>attempt to resubjectify oneself is like creating a work of art. There will
>>inevitably be strategies of exclusion as long as power relations are
>>prolific, so the ethico-political action should be a constant resistance.
>>
>>
>>>We are faced with the same problem in our project. Because of our initial
>>>concern with the exclusions inherent in an active society, we in a way
>>>presuppose a certain kind of truth: that we are all equal and should have
>>>equal rights and possibilities. Personally I have no problem with such an
>>>attitude, but isn't there an academic problem when we are trying to do a
>>>genealogy?
>>
>>Its not so much an issue of pursuing truth--at least not in its traditional
>>understanding. Geneology is "anti-science", it brings into present all
>>those discourses and knowledges the history and science books don't tell you
>>about. Its not about a search for origin, as traditional historical
>>analysis pursues, but is about understanding that events don't exist in a
>>vacuum, independent of a multitude of relations and discourses that shape an
>>event. Geneology does alleviate truth(s), and claims no objectivity in its
>>findings, but rather undermines the concept of an objective truth which is
>>dominant in our thinking today. (oh, also, you may want to be careful in
>>presupposing a concept of equality and rights--such liberal terms have been
>>used for very questionable purposes)
>>
>>Loren Dent
>>Georgetown High School, TX
>
>
>
>
>
well, my response was based on various sources..and the interviews w/
foucault are the best.. Try reading the interviews in THE FOUCAULT READER
edited by paul rabinow and POWER/KNOWLEDGE edited by Joseph Rouse.. To be
honest, all i've read actually BY foucault are a few of his essays. I've yet
to read any of his books. But i have read various sources on foucault.
loren
At 04:43 PM 12/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Loren,
>
>As someone who is not as familiar with Foucault as he might be, I'm
>wondering about some sources for some of your comments in response to
>Anders. Or are your comments derived from the general "geist"/gist of
>Foucault?
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>>>Well I certainly agree. But Isn't it rather problematic to break something
>>>down in order to build up something new? Won't new understandings and
>>>categorizations allways imply new inclusions and exclusions?
>>
>>Well, thats certainly the problematic foucault enjoys. Its not his
>>contention that one can escape relations of power in the process or the
>>finality of self-subjectification. To establish ones own subject is to
>>consistantly employ strategies of resistance and transgression. Foucault
>>compares such strategies as creating art--in which the process and/or
>>attempt to resubjectify oneself is like creating a work of art. There will
>>inevitably be strategies of exclusion as long as power relations are
>>prolific, so the ethico-political action should be a constant resistance.
>>
>>
>>>We are faced with the same problem in our project. Because of our initial
>>>concern with the exclusions inherent in an active society, we in a way
>>>presuppose a certain kind of truth: that we are all equal and should have
>>>equal rights and possibilities. Personally I have no problem with such an
>>>attitude, but isn't there an academic problem when we are trying to do a
>>>genealogy?
>>
>>Its not so much an issue of pursuing truth--at least not in its traditional
>>understanding. Geneology is "anti-science", it brings into present all
>>those discourses and knowledges the history and science books don't tell you
>>about. Its not about a search for origin, as traditional historical
>>analysis pursues, but is about understanding that events don't exist in a
>>vacuum, independent of a multitude of relations and discourses that shape an
>>event. Geneology does alleviate truth(s), and claims no objectivity in its
>>findings, but rather undermines the concept of an objective truth which is
>>dominant in our thinking today. (oh, also, you may want to be careful in
>>presupposing a concept of equality and rights--such liberal terms have been
>>used for very questionable purposes)
>>
>>Loren Dent
>>Georgetown High School, TX
>
>
>
>
>