I recently re-read John Ransom's "Forget Vitalism: Foucault and
Lebensphilosophie", an article which featured a while back on this list.
While John's criticism of those who wish to introduce vitalism and agonistic
liberation of difference into Foucault's thought seems reasonable and to
some extent justified, his concluding remarks regarding the possiblity of
change based purely on paying attention to "transcription errors" in the
code or socio-genetic mutations seems rather reductive. While it may make
sense in the context of Foucault's geneaologies and his 1970s theory of
power, it makes no reference to Foucault's late work (apart from the
introduction to Canguilhem's <The Normal and the Pathological>). While
Foucault's late work may not be vitalist as Deleuze contends, it seems to me
that it belongs to an aestheticist tradition of philosophical thought.
Furthermore, the "transcription error" reading seems to miss the exploration
and articulation of a form of reflexivity or performativity in Foucault's
late work which it seems to me was present in all his very stylishly written
early works.
Any thoughts out there on this? Have I missed the point? The article must
have gone out to quite a few members of this list considering the number of
request at the time of its announcement. I did not, however, recall much
discussion of it, critical or otherwise.
cheers
sebastian
Lebensphilosophie", an article which featured a while back on this list.
While John's criticism of those who wish to introduce vitalism and agonistic
liberation of difference into Foucault's thought seems reasonable and to
some extent justified, his concluding remarks regarding the possiblity of
change based purely on paying attention to "transcription errors" in the
code or socio-genetic mutations seems rather reductive. While it may make
sense in the context of Foucault's geneaologies and his 1970s theory of
power, it makes no reference to Foucault's late work (apart from the
introduction to Canguilhem's <The Normal and the Pathological>). While
Foucault's late work may not be vitalist as Deleuze contends, it seems to me
that it belongs to an aestheticist tradition of philosophical thought.
Furthermore, the "transcription error" reading seems to miss the exploration
and articulation of a form of reflexivity or performativity in Foucault's
late work which it seems to me was present in all his very stylishly written
early works.
Any thoughts out there on this? Have I missed the point? The article must
have gone out to quite a few members of this list considering the number of
request at the time of its announcement. I did not, however, recall much
discussion of it, critical or otherwise.
cheers
sebastian