Hello Nathan -
You wrote:
> These are, to be honest, points that Foucault doesn't work out very
>explicitly. Deleuze's book on Foucault may be worth a look. It has the
>advantage that it doesn't contain the sort of reductive readings that
>Deleuze and Guattari had earlier given of Foucaultian power relations.
As someone who has never been able to reconcile Deleuze's reading
of Foucault in _Foucault_ with his "notes" published as "Desire and Pleasure,"
I'd be most grateful if you (or anyone for that matter) could help me understand
the different tenors of these two Deleuze pieces on Foucault. To be honest,
I've always (perhaps mistakenly) read various parts of Deleuze's _Foucualt_
(especially his read of HoS/the fold stuff) as simply a product of Deleuze's
highly productive but idiosyncratic approach to reading other thinkers.
To put it another way, *maybe* Deleuze's book on Foucault isn't Deleuze
finally getting Foucault "right" (ie, getting away from a reductive reading
of Foucault)
but rather Deleuze enveloping and deploying yet another thinker within
his own "image of thought." Any comments you have would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Dan Smith
You wrote:
> These are, to be honest, points that Foucault doesn't work out very
>explicitly. Deleuze's book on Foucault may be worth a look. It has the
>advantage that it doesn't contain the sort of reductive readings that
>Deleuze and Guattari had earlier given of Foucaultian power relations.
As someone who has never been able to reconcile Deleuze's reading
of Foucault in _Foucault_ with his "notes" published as "Desire and Pleasure,"
I'd be most grateful if you (or anyone for that matter) could help me understand
the different tenors of these two Deleuze pieces on Foucault. To be honest,
I've always (perhaps mistakenly) read various parts of Deleuze's _Foucualt_
(especially his read of HoS/the fold stuff) as simply a product of Deleuze's
highly productive but idiosyncratic approach to reading other thinkers.
To put it another way, *maybe* Deleuze's book on Foucault isn't Deleuze
finally getting Foucault "right" (ie, getting away from a reductive reading
of Foucault)
but rather Deleuze enveloping and deploying yet another thinker within
his own "image of thought." Any comments you have would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Dan Smith