Re: Foucault, the liberal self, and individuality

--------------B0D705B334A972ED41FEACE6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Sean

I think that you must understand that individual (Like subject) are
social meanings, not qualities of Being prior to the social. So that in
Foucault the 'individual' and the 'subject' are both social
constructsóyet it would be mistaken to think that the only form of
individuality is one that includes the prediscursive, this is to fall
into the liberal trap freedom is only a individual that pre-exists
social, discourse, history, content. I think that for Foucault discourse
is powerful, yet at the same time impotent to determine individuals,
subjects. Language is a medium that can never accomplish closure (secure
meaning) so that when power works through language it is never
totalizing. Perhaps, and this is only my little notion, some hint of
'individuality' is found in the necessity for interpretation and the
indeterminacy of language that allows for 'transgression'. transgression
is not the free will, the transcendence of history (discourse) but the
pushing past its limits through the articulations of the indeterminacies
always present in language.

Remember that for Foucault power is just a name (His of Sex I)óa name
for a particular discursive formation at a given timeóit is not a
directed, intentional, force. Power is a much misunderstood concept in
Foucaultóas if power is directional, leading somewhere, while I believe
power is just a term used to describe the force that meanings we are
thrown into have on us, this power is never inescapable, or determining
unless we suffer from some sort of crisis of confidence in our own
powers to form the world for ourselves. Foucault's ethics is all about
taking responsibility for the 'power' we exert on the world through our
interpretations (the form) we give to the world. In this form giving
activity we are individuals (not the liberal individual that pre-exists
history) but the one responsible for our creation. Responsible for the
shape we give to the material of our experience, even though that
material and the form giver are never outside that material
(discourse).

Ted

"We contemplate eternity Beneath the vast indifference of heaven"

Sean Guillory wrote:

> Dear all, I have been having a conversation with some friends on the
> concept of individuality and whether individuals exist
> philosophically. I would like to hear all of your thoughts on this
> specifically in relation to Foucault's theories. I contend that the
> individual does not exist because there is no pre-discursive human
> experience and that humans cannot step outside the power relations
> that sorround them. My questions are this: For Foucault is there are
> difference between individual and subject? What does he say about the
> liberal self or liberal subject and its construction? (I know there
> is a connection to the Order of Things here, a book I admit is mostly
> beyond my comprehension). Lastly, I wonder if the collapse of
> binaries (possibly in line with Judith Butler's arguments on gender)
> is a way out of the concept of liberal individuality. I would like to
> hear all your thoughts on these questions. Sean***
> Sean Guillory
> guillory@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> PO Box 1312
> Claremont, CA 91711-1312
> "We find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately
> take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt
> ends -- the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of
> politicians who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate
> and plunder it."-- F. Engels, 1891** David McReynolds for President!
> **
> http://www.votesocialist.org
>

--------------B0D705B334A972ED41FEACE6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Sean
I think that you must understand that individual (Like subject) are
social meanings, not qualities of Being prior to the social. So that in
Foucault the 'individual' and the 'subject' are both social constructs?yet
it would be mistaken to think that the only form of individuality is one
that includes the prediscursive, this is to fall into the liberal trap
freedom is only a individual that pre-exists social, discourse,
history, content. I think that for Foucault discourse is powerful, yet
at the same time impotent to determine individuals, subjects. Language
is a medium that can never accomplish closure (secure meaning) so that
when power works through language it is never totalizing. Perhaps, and
this is only my little notion, some hint of 'individuality' is found in
the necessity for interpretation and the indeterminacy of language that
allows for 'transgression'. transgression is not the free will, the transcendence
of history (discourse) but the pushing past its limits through the articulations
of the indeterminacies always present in language.
Remember that for Foucault power is just a name (His of Sex I)?a name
for a particular discursive formation at a given time?it is not a directed,
intentional, force. Power is a much misunderstood concept in Foucault?as
if power is directional, leading somewhere, while I believe power is just
a term used to describe the force that meanings we are thrown into have
on us, this power is never inescapable, or determining unless we suffer
from some sort of crisis of confidence in our own powers to form the world
for ourselves. Foucault's ethics is all about taking responsibility for
the 'power' we exert on the world through our interpretations (the form)
we give to the world. In this form giving activity we are individuals (not
the liberal individual that pre-exists history) but the one responsible
for our creation. Responsible for the shape we give to the material of
our experience, even though that material and the form giver are never
outside that material (discourse). 
Ted
"We contemplate eternity Beneath the vast indifference of heaven"
  
  
Sean Guillory wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> Dear all, I
have been having a conversation with some friends on the concept of individuality
and whether individuals exist philosophically.  I would like to hear
all of your thoughts on this specifically in relation to Foucault's theories. 
I contend that the individual does not exist because there is no pre-discursive
human experience and that humans cannot step outside the power relations
that sorround them.  My questions are this:  For Foucault is
there are difference between individual and subject?  What does he
say about the liberal self or liberal subject and its construction? 
(I know there is a connection to the Order of Things here, a book I admit
is mostly beyond my comprehension).  Lastly, I wonder if the collapse
of binaries (possibly in line with Judith Butler's arguments on gender)
is a way out of the concept of liberal individuality. I
would like to hear all your thoughts on these questions. Sean***
 Sean Guillory
 <a href="mailto:guillory@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>guillory@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
 PO Box 1312
 Claremont, CA 91711-1312
 "We find two great gangs of political
speculators, who alternately
 take possession of the state power
and exploit it by the most corrupt
 ends -- the nation is powerless
against these two great cartels of
 politicians who are ostensibly
its servants, but in reality dominate
 and plunder it."-- F. Engels, 1891**
David McReynolds for President! **
 <a href="http://www.votesocialist.org";>http://www.votesocialist.org</a>
  </blockquote>

</body>
</html>

--------------B0D705B334A972ED41FEACE6--