I have suggested before the importance of the interviwe "Truth and Power" in
terms of how Foucault tries to charcterize methodological limits and
precautions in researching histories of social practice. "Two Lectures" is
equally valuable.
Although I haven't read Lentricchias's critique, I see one mistake in the
quote you presented: Foucault never says that "power is always productive,"
only that it has an important but unappreciated productive aspect. L also
seems to assume a 'preexisting subject' in indentities such as "woman,"
"homosexual," "black," etc., which is precisely what Foucault tries to warn
us against. What is "produced" then cannot be considered until we inquire
into the role of the subjectivized/objectivized individual in specific
practical contexts. In other words, it seems to me that L wants to separate
these identities from the socio-historical practices that gave rise to them
in a way Foucault would find objectionable. The specific criticism you quote
would not hold up otherwise.
>From: Michaela.Blaha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Foucault & postcolonialism
>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:36:18 +0100
>
>Hello all,
>
>a while ago, I asked which of Foucault's works have applied the
>discourse/power axiom in order to analyze postcolonial relations.
>One book that I have found in addition to those already mentioned is
>"Metaphors of Dispossession: American Beginnings and the Translation of
>Empire. 1492-1637. "
>
>
>In the process, I also came upon Lentricchias's "Ariel and the Police".
>I have found his critique somewhat baffling.
>For instance, he says
>
>"If power is always productive, as [Foucault] says it is, then one
>wants to know what is _produced_ in the general domination of women, or
>homosexuals, or blacks, or Palestinians, or children."
>
>Doesn't Lentricchia here confuse "power relations" with "domination", and
>the idea that there is something like "general domination" (power) with
>Foucault's insistence that power is never general, but only discernible in
>singular practices?
>
>And how has his critique as a whole been received? It seems to me that many
>points he makes do not actually reflect what Foucault was addressing.
>
>Michaela
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
terms of how Foucault tries to charcterize methodological limits and
precautions in researching histories of social practice. "Two Lectures" is
equally valuable.
Although I haven't read Lentricchias's critique, I see one mistake in the
quote you presented: Foucault never says that "power is always productive,"
only that it has an important but unappreciated productive aspect. L also
seems to assume a 'preexisting subject' in indentities such as "woman,"
"homosexual," "black," etc., which is precisely what Foucault tries to warn
us against. What is "produced" then cannot be considered until we inquire
into the role of the subjectivized/objectivized individual in specific
practical contexts. In other words, it seems to me that L wants to separate
these identities from the socio-historical practices that gave rise to them
in a way Foucault would find objectionable. The specific criticism you quote
would not hold up otherwise.
>From: Michaela.Blaha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Foucault & postcolonialism
>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:36:18 +0100
>
>Hello all,
>
>a while ago, I asked which of Foucault's works have applied the
>discourse/power axiom in order to analyze postcolonial relations.
>One book that I have found in addition to those already mentioned is
>"Metaphors of Dispossession: American Beginnings and the Translation of
>Empire. 1492-1637. "
>
>
>In the process, I also came upon Lentricchias's "Ariel and the Police".
>I have found his critique somewhat baffling.
>For instance, he says
>
>"If power is always productive, as [Foucault] says it is, then one
>wants to know what is _produced_ in the general domination of women, or
>homosexuals, or blacks, or Palestinians, or children."
>
>Doesn't Lentricchia here confuse "power relations" with "domination", and
>the idea that there is something like "general domination" (power) with
>Foucault's insistence that power is never general, but only discernible in
>singular practices?
>
>And how has his critique as a whole been received? It seems to me that many
>points he makes do not actually reflect what Foucault was addressing.
>
>Michaela
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com