Re-reading:
[endnote] Gilles Deleuze, _Foucault_ (Paris: Les ditions de Minuit, 1986),
p. 98. "When power becomes bio-power, resistance becomes the power of life,
a vital power that cannot be restricted by species, nor by the contexts and
paths of such and such a diagram. This force that comes from the outside,
isn't it a certain idea of Life, a kind of vitalism that acts as the
culmination of the thought of Foucault? Isn't life precisely this capacity
to resist force?"
[end excerpt from article]
I am still a bit confused by your prersentation. The vitalist argument you
presented in the earlier part of the article was not _explicitly_ congruent
to Deleuze's claim. Notice he muddles the vitalist claim by 'certain/kind
of' and the logic seems to suggest that "Life" of Deleuze is not necessarily
the vitalist "Life", but a 'capacity' or an 'ability' to gaze-over and
possibly resist. Also, the important variable is bio-power--that shift in
the 'diagram' that changes the technologies of power and focuses them on the
body and on the forces of life. The stress on the body results in a
backlash/resistance of the same kind. Non-biopower resistance is non-bio;
non-Life. The nature of this resistance is a 'kind of vitalism' because it
is individual to the particular body and comes from the 'outside',i.e.,
somewhere removed. Thus, resistance to bio-power is not a part of any
diagram.
Maybe this is what Deleuze is trying to communicate?
-michal
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
[endnote] Gilles Deleuze, _Foucault_ (Paris: Les ditions de Minuit, 1986),
p. 98. "When power becomes bio-power, resistance becomes the power of life,
a vital power that cannot be restricted by species, nor by the contexts and
paths of such and such a diagram. This force that comes from the outside,
isn't it a certain idea of Life, a kind of vitalism that acts as the
culmination of the thought of Foucault? Isn't life precisely this capacity
to resist force?"
[end excerpt from article]
I am still a bit confused by your prersentation. The vitalist argument you
presented in the earlier part of the article was not _explicitly_ congruent
to Deleuze's claim. Notice he muddles the vitalist claim by 'certain/kind
of' and the logic seems to suggest that "Life" of Deleuze is not necessarily
the vitalist "Life", but a 'capacity' or an 'ability' to gaze-over and
possibly resist. Also, the important variable is bio-power--that shift in
the 'diagram' that changes the technologies of power and focuses them on the
body and on the forces of life. The stress on the body results in a
backlash/resistance of the same kind. Non-biopower resistance is non-bio;
non-Life. The nature of this resistance is a 'kind of vitalism' because it
is individual to the particular body and comes from the 'outside',i.e.,
somewhere removed. Thus, resistance to bio-power is not a part of any
diagram.
Maybe this is what Deleuze is trying to communicate?
-michal
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001