The question I have always come across with Foucault is, that given his
influence on fields of study (such as law, psychology, politics), his
analyses make it very difficult for those who have a privileged
middle-class education to articulate their needs. In other words, according
to Foucault's understandings, a social worker cannot work with people in
need because s/he does not understand their "real story". A lawyer cannot
represent their clients and produce an outcome favourable for them because
s/he doesn't undersand their real story. An organisation cannot pursue a
cause on behalf of a group of people (eg women/men, children, eethnic
groups) because it cannot really understand their "stories". In fact, it
would be impossible to so anything. Foucault does not mean anything to a
woman who is being abused by her husband. Foucault does notmean anything to
victims of child abuse and neglect. I am aware that he may not have seen
himself as a 'liberator' or 'reformist'. My question is, what is he? Is he
simply a middle-class prat who has nothing better to do that assert his own
power/knowledge? Or is he more?
Any comments welcome.
At 13:19 7/01/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I don't think Foucault had a distinctive methodology or point of view. I
think
>he was always playing offense. When Foucault put forward an
interpretation, he
>was not saying "this is truth":He was saying "here is an alternative
narrative
>about X which, on its own terms, is fully as plausible and rich in meaning
and
>implication as the conventional story we normally hear told about X. Please
>notice that this alternative story about X takes as essential precisely
those
>anomilies which most be ignored if the conventional story told about X is to
>achieve coherence and closure." Foucault never attempted to put forth the
"real
>story" about anything. This attempt to tell the "real story" is what he
>disparaged under the name of "commentary". His point is that there is no
"real
>story" that can be told about anything of much importance to human beings.
His
>point is that any telling of any story is told from one particular
perspective.
>This perspective determines what will be seen as essential or central to the
>story and what will be seen as anomilous or trivial and therefor get left
out
>of the story. Foucaults' central point about power/knowledge is that power
is
>finally the power to impose the sense of what is essential determined by
ones
>own perspective on persons who do not share that perspective. Knowledge is
the
>power to define the real and to define anyone who dissents as "mad"
"perverted"
>"criminal" or "an F student". There is no knowledge in the absence of
power and
>no power which does not generate its own special knowledge. Educational
>Psychology, for example, is the knowledge generated by the power of teachers
>and administrators to define students from a perspective determined by the
>demands made upon students by the public school system. Any student who does
>not meet these demands is labeled as "lacking in social skills" or
>"behavoirally disturbed". If the public school system disappeared tommarrow,
>Educational Psychology would go the way of phrenology. If the demands made
of
>students within the public schools where to dramatically change for what
ever
>reason, the result would be a great leap forward by Educational
Psychology. New
>knowledge would be generated at a breath taking rate as all the pedogical
>bigotries of the dark past melted away before the bright, warm light of
>enligthened scientific thought.
> Any comments,
> Tony Michael Roberts
>
>
>
influence on fields of study (such as law, psychology, politics), his
analyses make it very difficult for those who have a privileged
middle-class education to articulate their needs. In other words, according
to Foucault's understandings, a social worker cannot work with people in
need because s/he does not understand their "real story". A lawyer cannot
represent their clients and produce an outcome favourable for them because
s/he doesn't undersand their real story. An organisation cannot pursue a
cause on behalf of a group of people (eg women/men, children, eethnic
groups) because it cannot really understand their "stories". In fact, it
would be impossible to so anything. Foucault does not mean anything to a
woman who is being abused by her husband. Foucault does notmean anything to
victims of child abuse and neglect. I am aware that he may not have seen
himself as a 'liberator' or 'reformist'. My question is, what is he? Is he
simply a middle-class prat who has nothing better to do that assert his own
power/knowledge? Or is he more?
Any comments welcome.
At 13:19 7/01/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I don't think Foucault had a distinctive methodology or point of view. I
think
>he was always playing offense. When Foucault put forward an
interpretation, he
>was not saying "this is truth":He was saying "here is an alternative
narrative
>about X which, on its own terms, is fully as plausible and rich in meaning
and
>implication as the conventional story we normally hear told about X. Please
>notice that this alternative story about X takes as essential precisely
those
>anomilies which most be ignored if the conventional story told about X is to
>achieve coherence and closure." Foucault never attempted to put forth the
"real
>story" about anything. This attempt to tell the "real story" is what he
>disparaged under the name of "commentary". His point is that there is no
"real
>story" that can be told about anything of much importance to human beings.
His
>point is that any telling of any story is told from one particular
perspective.
>This perspective determines what will be seen as essential or central to the
>story and what will be seen as anomilous or trivial and therefor get left
out
>of the story. Foucaults' central point about power/knowledge is that power
is
>finally the power to impose the sense of what is essential determined by
ones
>own perspective on persons who do not share that perspective. Knowledge is
the
>power to define the real and to define anyone who dissents as "mad"
"perverted"
>"criminal" or "an F student". There is no knowledge in the absence of
power and
>no power which does not generate its own special knowledge. Educational
>Psychology, for example, is the knowledge generated by the power of teachers
>and administrators to define students from a perspective determined by the
>demands made upon students by the public school system. Any student who does
>not meet these demands is labeled as "lacking in social skills" or
>"behavoirally disturbed". If the public school system disappeared tommarrow,
>Educational Psychology would go the way of phrenology. If the demands made
of
>students within the public schools where to dramatically change for what
ever
>reason, the result would be a great leap forward by Educational
Psychology. New
>knowledge would be generated at a breath taking rate as all the pedogical
>bigotries of the dark past melted away before the bright, warm light of
>enligthened scientific thought.
> Any comments,
> Tony Michael Roberts
>
>
>