In Ian's point below, about the nature of biopower being a domain "ends
where killing begins," isn't your premise, that biopower has/or should have
an eternal nature, antithetical to Foucault's concept of power? I mean,
shouldn't biopower, as a domain, be flexible and mutable according/in
response to the struggles of the times in which it operates, so that in one
era it may, at first, not include killing as a technique on the body but
then, in another era, come to include killing as a technique? Isn't that an
aspect of Foucault's theory of power--that strategies aren't innate, that
they don't have/function by an internal perpetuity?
Could this "shift" that Ian spoke of--a very good point which is going to
send me running back, soon as I get off work, to read the last section of
HS1--couldn't this shift not be a contradiction in Foucault's account of
power relations, but rather a very good example of the transient "nature"
of power?
Mitch
>Cleaning out my inbox, this caught my eye:
>
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Ian Robert Douglas wrote:
>
>> Biopower is more effective than genocide
>
>In the last section of History of Sexuality vol. 1, Foucault identifies
>genocide as an element of biopower (tying the rise of genocide to the rise
>of biopower). An important point for two reasons: first, it seems to
>mark an internal inconsistency--or rather a transition--within HS1; if
>genocidal mass murder is part of biopower then Foucauldian power now no
>longer ends where killing begins, as it had through D&P and most of HS1.
>Second, by linking genocide with biopower Foucault associates himself with
>the sociobiological view on the origins of genocide (thus with Robert Jay
>Lifton, Stephan Chorover, Richard M. Lerner, etc.) as opposed to a more
>Hegelian-phenomenological view (which is familiar to me from the work of
>Howard Adelman here at York).
>
>> I think air strikes have been purposely used to block the possibility
>> of actually defending the Kosovars by sending in ground troops.
>> We'll see if I'm wrong if they do indeed send in ground troops in a
>> declared war.
>
>I don't know to what extent it was done on purpose (though undoubtedly
>some), but as far as the effects go, six weeks later, you are absolutely
>right.
>
>Matthew
>
> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
> ----------------------------(Michel Foucault)------------------------------
where killing begins," isn't your premise, that biopower has/or should have
an eternal nature, antithetical to Foucault's concept of power? I mean,
shouldn't biopower, as a domain, be flexible and mutable according/in
response to the struggles of the times in which it operates, so that in one
era it may, at first, not include killing as a technique on the body but
then, in another era, come to include killing as a technique? Isn't that an
aspect of Foucault's theory of power--that strategies aren't innate, that
they don't have/function by an internal perpetuity?
Could this "shift" that Ian spoke of--a very good point which is going to
send me running back, soon as I get off work, to read the last section of
HS1--couldn't this shift not be a contradiction in Foucault's account of
power relations, but rather a very good example of the transient "nature"
of power?
Mitch
>Cleaning out my inbox, this caught my eye:
>
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Ian Robert Douglas wrote:
>
>> Biopower is more effective than genocide
>
>In the last section of History of Sexuality vol. 1, Foucault identifies
>genocide as an element of biopower (tying the rise of genocide to the rise
>of biopower). An important point for two reasons: first, it seems to
>mark an internal inconsistency--or rather a transition--within HS1; if
>genocidal mass murder is part of biopower then Foucauldian power now no
>longer ends where killing begins, as it had through D&P and most of HS1.
>Second, by linking genocide with biopower Foucault associates himself with
>the sociobiological view on the origins of genocide (thus with Robert Jay
>Lifton, Stephan Chorover, Richard M. Lerner, etc.) as opposed to a more
>Hegelian-phenomenological view (which is familiar to me from the work of
>Howard Adelman here at York).
>
>> I think air strikes have been purposely used to block the possibility
>> of actually defending the Kosovars by sending in ground troops.
>> We'll see if I'm wrong if they do indeed send in ground troops in a
>> declared war.
>
>I don't know to what extent it was done on purpose (though undoubtedly
>some), but as far as the effects go, six weeks later, you are absolutely
>right.
>
>Matthew
>
> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
> ----------------------------(Michel Foucault)------------------------------