Asher's response is right on. I'd add a few things though:
First, Foucault never denies by any means that power is unequal and
nonegalitarian--this, of course, explains the questions you raise over the
professor, the manager, the state, universities, churces, etc.. But that
unequal relation is never a given, self-positioning event--but is rather
constituted by other relations that are more local and singular. (to counter
the traditional belief in soveirgnty or the localization of power in the
state, foucault references "local centers" of power--or--the most localized,
immediate relations that give rise to a relation or an event, and ultimately
condition such unequal relations.) In this sense, it is possible to subvert
those relations, or at least unsettle them.
Second, and relating to the first, no institution carries its own
weight--for instance, there really is no state present to itself. The state
is constituted by bueracracies, those being constituted by people,
relations--an entire network or relations make up institutions. There is no
doubt that any social body or insitution is most threatened not by the
outside, but from within. This is in some ways similar to Derrida's claim
that no structure is self-evident and instead relies on internal functions--
It seems that perceiving institutions as always volitile can leave room for
a more specific resistance, avoiding the "totalizing tendencies of Marxism",
etc.
Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Stokes <dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 8:08 AM
Subject: F on discourse in institutional contexts
> 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
>
First, Foucault never denies by any means that power is unequal and
nonegalitarian--this, of course, explains the questions you raise over the
professor, the manager, the state, universities, churces, etc.. But that
unequal relation is never a given, self-positioning event--but is rather
constituted by other relations that are more local and singular. (to counter
the traditional belief in soveirgnty or the localization of power in the
state, foucault references "local centers" of power--or--the most localized,
immediate relations that give rise to a relation or an event, and ultimately
condition such unequal relations.) In this sense, it is possible to subvert
those relations, or at least unsettle them.
Second, and relating to the first, no institution carries its own
weight--for instance, there really is no state present to itself. The state
is constituted by bueracracies, those being constituted by people,
relations--an entire network or relations make up institutions. There is no
doubt that any social body or insitution is most threatened not by the
outside, but from within. This is in some ways similar to Derrida's claim
that no structure is self-evident and instead relies on internal functions--
It seems that perceiving institutions as always volitile can leave room for
a more specific resistance, avoiding the "totalizing tendencies of Marxism",
etc.
Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Stokes <dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 8:08 AM
Subject: F on discourse in institutional contexts
> 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
>