on 24/2/00 2:08 pm, Doug Stokes at dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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
>
Hi Doug
Interesting point and very pertinent to what Im working on just now.
I agree with you that there has to be a 'middle' point somehow in our
understandings of power and its applications which makes room for
institutions and actors which control the propagation of major discourses
etc.
I was wondering if you thought that the concept of government understood as
the modalities of control applied onto populations and onto oneself to
create particular types of subjects would help your quest for agency and
differential applications of power within a Foucauldian framework. It seems
to me that to unlock power 'points', one has to look for them and this may
necessitate empirical work. Im trying to put the finishing touches to a
paper on the government of older people using welfare as the principal site
of government as it interacts with the narrative of decline. Im arguing that
in this way we can begin to explore the extent to which older people control
their own government and what other forces 'external' to them give shape to
the modalities of their government. This is a departure from traditional
accounts of later life which are often premised on the powerlessness of old
age (thereby contributing to its construction as such). But what I want to
emphasise is the necessity to give voice to people to explore the details of
their engagement with government. Only then can we know how various
'institutions' impact on their lives and how old people themselves deal with
them.
I have to go back to my paper so Ill leave you with these thoughts just now.
However any reactions would be appreciated.
Cheers
Emmanuelle
Emmanuelle Tulle-Winton
Lecturer in Sociology
School of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow G4 0BA
Scotland
Tel: 0141 331 8652 (+ 44 141 331 8652 international)
Fax: 0141 331 3439 (+ 44 141 331 3439 international)
> 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
>
Hi Doug
Interesting point and very pertinent to what Im working on just now.
I agree with you that there has to be a 'middle' point somehow in our
understandings of power and its applications which makes room for
institutions and actors which control the propagation of major discourses
etc.
I was wondering if you thought that the concept of government understood as
the modalities of control applied onto populations and onto oneself to
create particular types of subjects would help your quest for agency and
differential applications of power within a Foucauldian framework. It seems
to me that to unlock power 'points', one has to look for them and this may
necessitate empirical work. Im trying to put the finishing touches to a
paper on the government of older people using welfare as the principal site
of government as it interacts with the narrative of decline. Im arguing that
in this way we can begin to explore the extent to which older people control
their own government and what other forces 'external' to them give shape to
the modalities of their government. This is a departure from traditional
accounts of later life which are often premised on the powerlessness of old
age (thereby contributing to its construction as such). But what I want to
emphasise is the necessity to give voice to people to explore the details of
their engagement with government. Only then can we know how various
'institutions' impact on their lives and how old people themselves deal with
them.
I have to go back to my paper so Ill leave you with these thoughts just now.
However any reactions would be appreciated.
Cheers
Emmanuelle
Emmanuelle Tulle-Winton
Lecturer in Sociology
School of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow G4 0BA
Scotland
Tel: 0141 331 8652 (+ 44 141 331 8652 international)
Fax: 0141 331 3439 (+ 44 141 331 3439 international)