Clare
I think we largely agree here. I'm interested in the accumulation of
material, stories, etc. that Foucault doesn't really come to grips with. I
guess he was working on a whole range of new material (much of what came
before the mid 70s seems to me to have been a working through of issues
touched on in Histoire de la folie) and wasn't entirely sure what to do with
it.
>But as I have said before, in my opinion Foucault kind of lost
>it for a while in the 1970s. This is not to say that I think *all*
>his work is bad during that decade. The lectures he gave in Brazil in
>1974 were outstanding and I liked 'Two Lectures' and there is also
>quite a bit of other stuff...
Yes, the Rio lectures are remarkable, and supplement Birth of the Clinic
very well. I quite liked Il faut defendre la societe, from which the two
lectures were taken, but i haven't given it sustained reading - just a first
read through - unlike Les Anormaux, which bits of i know much better.
>I'm sorry to say this - but I think Foucault was right to destroy
>it!! (provocation plus :-) ) and I'm glad that he decided to change
>tack. The material in volume 4 of Dits et ecrits (writings from 1980
>onwards) is really remarkable and in my view goes a long way towards
>improving on and clarifying what he did in the 1970s.
I'd probably agree, but i wish that Les Aveux de la Chair was published. It
seems like the History of Sexuality series we have is really missing it. It
might make up for the lack of La Chair et le Corps. I was very unhappy when
i read the later (ie the 80s) Foucault for the first time, but i'm beginning
to soften my attitude to it. The rethinking of Kant is, i think excellent,
i'm getting more into the 'ethical' stuff. But this has to be remembered as
a genealogy of the subject, written precisely in order to circumvent the
notion. There is not an uncritical return to the self in the late Foucault.
best
Stuart
I think we largely agree here. I'm interested in the accumulation of
material, stories, etc. that Foucault doesn't really come to grips with. I
guess he was working on a whole range of new material (much of what came
before the mid 70s seems to me to have been a working through of issues
touched on in Histoire de la folie) and wasn't entirely sure what to do with
it.
>But as I have said before, in my opinion Foucault kind of lost
>it for a while in the 1970s. This is not to say that I think *all*
>his work is bad during that decade. The lectures he gave in Brazil in
>1974 were outstanding and I liked 'Two Lectures' and there is also
>quite a bit of other stuff...
Yes, the Rio lectures are remarkable, and supplement Birth of the Clinic
very well. I quite liked Il faut defendre la societe, from which the two
lectures were taken, but i haven't given it sustained reading - just a first
read through - unlike Les Anormaux, which bits of i know much better.
>I'm sorry to say this - but I think Foucault was right to destroy
>it!! (provocation plus :-) ) and I'm glad that he decided to change
>tack. The material in volume 4 of Dits et ecrits (writings from 1980
>onwards) is really remarkable and in my view goes a long way towards
>improving on and clarifying what he did in the 1970s.
I'd probably agree, but i wish that Les Aveux de la Chair was published. It
seems like the History of Sexuality series we have is really missing it. It
might make up for the lack of La Chair et le Corps. I was very unhappy when
i read the later (ie the 80s) Foucault for the first time, but i'm beginning
to soften my attitude to it. The rethinking of Kant is, i think excellent,
i'm getting more into the 'ethical' stuff. But this has to be remembered as
a genealogy of the subject, written precisely in order to circumvent the
notion. There is not an uncritical return to the self in the late Foucault.
best
Stuart