Hi,
I find F's work very interesting but at the same time politically neutering
in that his analyses of discourse circumnavigates individual social actors.
For example, in my understanding power is intrinsically linked to knowledge.
The dual interaction of this produces discourses of the sayable and doable.
Inevitably there will be silences and exclusions. I think F explicitly
wished to theorise power further than traditional Marxist concepts i.e.
state centric, held by a ruling class and necessarily oppressive. He extends
power to look at its productive capabilities and its techniques and
rationalities. But this is precisely what I find frustrating. Whilst power
produces the subjects upon which it operates and the subjects produce other
subjects through exclusional discourse how can we retheorise social actors
back in.
That is, some individuals wield greater processes of identity construction
and discourse propagation. For example, a professor marking a students essay
has greater power than the student being marked. i.e. in the will to truth
the professor has the greater degree of power knowledge relations. Also,
discourses cluster around various institutions like for example, a
university, a state etc which have greater means of knowledge production and
therefore power.
My questions are:
a) How do we retheorise institutions back in whilst avoiding the
totalisational tendencies of Marxism, whilst retaining F's commitment to
discourse analyses. (i.e. how do we analyse the cluster of power knowledge
relations that cluster round institutions).
b) How do we retheorise social actors back in who have greater access to
discourse propagation and representational systems and address this
imbalance (i.e. Rupert murdoch has much greater access to processes of
discursive propagation than say a single mother on welfare, how do we
address this ?)
Any opinions on this?
Cheers,
Doug.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
I find F's work very interesting but at the same time politically neutering
in that his analyses of discourse circumnavigates individual social actors.
For example, in my understanding power is intrinsically linked to knowledge.
The dual interaction of this produces discourses of the sayable and doable.
Inevitably there will be silences and exclusions. I think F explicitly
wished to theorise power further than traditional Marxist concepts i.e.
state centric, held by a ruling class and necessarily oppressive. He extends
power to look at its productive capabilities and its techniques and
rationalities. But this is precisely what I find frustrating. Whilst power
produces the subjects upon which it operates and the subjects produce other
subjects through exclusional discourse how can we retheorise social actors
back in.
That is, some individuals wield greater processes of identity construction
and discourse propagation. For example, a professor marking a students essay
has greater power than the student being marked. i.e. in the will to truth
the professor has the greater degree of power knowledge relations. Also,
discourses cluster around various institutions like for example, a
university, a state etc which have greater means of knowledge production and
therefore power.
My questions are:
a) How do we retheorise institutions back in whilst avoiding the
totalisational tendencies of Marxism, whilst retaining F's commitment to
discourse analyses. (i.e. how do we analyse the cluster of power knowledge
relations that cluster round institutions).
b) How do we retheorise social actors back in who have greater access to
discourse propagation and representational systems and address this
imbalance (i.e. Rupert murdoch has much greater access to processes of
discursive propagation than say a single mother on welfare, how do we
address this ?)
Any opinions on this?
Cheers,
Doug.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com