Cathrine,
I don't understand what it is your getting at when you say that:
"Foucault did not 'apply his theories to prison reform'" Your claim moved
me to look into David Macey the Lives of Foucault. So I have spent some
time rereading, concerning his actions during the his period of prison
activism and time in Tunsia.
1. December 1966 Nation Union of Students strike breaks out against
Destour.
2. "French academic community breach the terms of their contracts, the
second clause of which ruled out any political activity or interference in
internal Tunsian affairs." (Macey)
3. 1968 "US president Humbert Humphrey visits Tunsia, US embassies are
attacked"
Foucault's activism is summed up so:
"the bitter taste left in his mouth by his experiences in the PCE was
being replaced by a real sense of excitement, The Marxism of the Students,
grouped mainly around a journal entitled Perspectives, was not
particularly sophisticate, and veered somewhat unsteadily from the
Trotskesy to Maoism ( the communist party itself had long been effectivley
marginalized, and had be completely banned in 1966): It was, however,
passionate, very concrete, and far removed from the mumbled political
discourses and quarrels over the ownership of concepts that Foucault had
heard in Paris" (Macey 204)
"Foucualt describes the events the events to Duccio Trombadori: 'strikes,
lectures boycotts and arrests continued throughout the year. The police
entered the university attacking the students, throwing them into jail. I
was to some extent respected by the local authorities, and that allowed me
easily to accomplish a series of actions. " (Macey 204)
Foucault overestimated the degree to which the respect of the authorities
would protect him, and the situation was rapidly becoming dangerous. At
one point, he allowed a Roneo machine used for printing anti-governement
leaflets to be concealed in his garden, despite the fact that he realised
he was under police surveillance. Daneil Defert, in the meantime, was
taking major risks by smuggling messages to Tunisians in Paris after his
regular visits to Foucault, sometimes concealing them in socks to avoid
discovery. "(Macey 205)
The definite warning came, the tactic was a familiar one. A boy with whom
Foucault had spent the night asked to be driven home. In a narrow lane,
Foucalts car was forced to halt, and he recieved a savage beating- Defert
describes him as having been tortured. "(Macey 205)
In the chapter "INTOLERABLE". Macey states something every similiar to
what your above mentioned qoute. "Foucault himself not to promote reforms,
but to gather and disseminate information about the prison system."
And as one reads further it turns he Foucault appears to have circulated
questionnaire to all envolved in the legal institution, as a gesture
against traditional notion of reform stemming out the 17th century
At this time in 1968 Foucault also political climate of prison activism
with Satre among others with often resulted in long prison sentences and
rioting on the part of the french activist community of which Foucault was
leading figure.
" Street demonstrations were not the only form of soldarity action to be
undertaken: An intitial hunger strike a the Sorbonne was followed by the
occupation of the Chapelle Saint Bernard by eleven militants form Secours
Rouge, Father Bernard, the priest in charge insisted that the chapel had
been occupied against his will but also acknowledged the hunger strikers
right to sanctuary, The chapel became the site of permanent political
meeting and strikers received a stream of celebrity visitors, including
Maurice Clavel, Simone Signoret, Yves Montand, and Foucalt, who begged
them to to end the strike before it was to late. "(260)
And here is Foucaults words,
"the situation in the prisons is intolerable, Prisoners are being treated
like dogs. The few rights they do have are not being respected. We want
to bring this scandal to light. Recent events have alerted public opinion
and the press to the way in which people are being sent to prisons
nowadays, and to the life that awaits them once they are inside: but we do
not want the movement to decline or pass in to oblivion. We must see to it
that real changes take place, and in order to do that we intend to wage a
long campaign.
I think that Foucault political side has been underscored in part because
his books were not always easily situated with a field of knowledge that
we normally accociate with politics, although in History of Sexuality he
says a number of every poltical things about Bio-power and the whole of
the courts etc. Foucault never performed his political actions from a
sense of political praxis stemming from a certain definable ideology, but
instead remained near to each situation as it came up. Ethics and opinion,
two Hellenic notions of political motivation, remained in the foreground.
Although I hate the world postmodern , I might say this could be a
postmodern political stance. In short, I know allots of differing
ideologies, but I do not need them to attempt political change or take
part in some "action" like the anti-globalism protests we have recently
experienced. Maybe I just have feeling, an opinion about the whole thing.
Maybe I feel it a ethical duty as a citizen and not a Marxian "world
historical calling" or a given law of our neo-liberal political science
departments. One thing remains clear, it is a great injustice to Foucault
to say that because he had no political ideology that he was not
political.
Best Wishes,
Jeremiah
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Catherine Mills wrote:
> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:42:37 GMT
> From: Catherine Mills <cat_mills@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: what about us
>
> Sean
>
> The suggestion that postmodernism needs a manifesto reminds me of Lacan's
> comments to a bunch of 'revolutionary' students that ' you are looking for a
> master. You will get one'. (or something like that). A manifesto is
> precisely what 'post-modernism' does not need and cannot have. And Foucault
> did not 'apply his theories to prison reform'. Such a move is in direct
> contradiction to why he was involved in these politics - the point of the
> GIP was to allow prisoners to speak for themselves. Please let's not 'apply
> theory' to politics - particularly regarding Foucault (and Butler for that
> matter), Nothing could be more sterile - or contra the impulse of their
> work.
>
> Catherine
>
>
> >From: Sean Guillory <guillory01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: what about us
> >Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:41:49 -0700
> >
> >I've thought about this a lot also because I see aspects of Foucault's,
> >Butler's et al. theories that should and need to be a part of a radical
> >social movement. When I do mention these theories of social activists they
> >either give me blank stare or write it off as inapplicable theory. I know
> >that Foucault was active in prison reform (though I don't know the details
> >of his activism). Does anyone know if/how well he applied his theories to
> >those causes? Perhaps, dare I say it, post-modernism/post whatever needs a
> >manifesto?
> >
> >Sean
> >Sean Guillory
> >guillory01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >AIM: seanguill, ICQ: 75192809
> >PO Box 1312
> >Claremont, CA 91711-1312
> >Vote Socialist! www.votesocialist.org
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Jeremiah. More should be done to impliment the theories
> >which
> > > are too often only expounded within the closed framework of lists such
> >as
> > > this. At least for myself I feel that I am not doing enough to effect
> >the
> > > world within which I exist. Too much time is spent debating the best
> >path
> >or
> > > action. Jeremiah's post reminds me of the line from Yeats' poem "The
> >best
> > > lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".
> >But
> > > the real question is how to effect the changes we seek.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeremiah Luna" <jeremiah.luna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Foucault" <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 7:20 AM
> > > Subject: what about us
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have this to say, It seems to me that our current debate between
> >Lynne
> > > > Cheney's views and Foucault4s theory are fruitful to a certain degree.
> > > > Between Cheney, Nussbaum, the Nation and Butler we as Foucaultian or
> > > > intellectuals of some sort naturally withdrawn into our own click, our
> > > > faction of leftist-intellecutal force. But the debate between the
> >"post
> > > > structuralist left" represented by Foucault and the Nation is maybe
> > > > important for a minute or too, but in the larger scope world political
> > > > events it is beside the point, since the "left" as a whole with all of
> >its
> > > > factions composes an extreme minority with almost no influence over
> >the
> > > > events of our day. And it seems to me to keep defining ourselves
> >"against"
> > > > this or that is a typical gesture of group identification and
> > > > construction,
> > > > which in the end produces yet another "sub culture" pushing for it
> > > > particular view as opposed to 100 of others while missing the bigger
> > > > challenges faces our era and generation.
> > > >
> > > > therefore I ask the question what about us
> >"pspseudo-intellectuals" -just
> > > > in for the hype- possessing no the academic skills to be professionals
> > > > within the context of the university as a highly competitive
> >capitalist
> > > > "knowledge institutions". Where does our reading and education
> > > > influence our daily life as citizens with our larger society? We all
> >have
> > > > the tendency to identify with the opinions and positions put forward
> >by
> > > Butler
> > > > and Spivak as alternative to the Nation and god forbid Cheney or
> > > > NutTree, but when I stop to think about what we really have for "real
> > > > intellectual community" in Tuebingen or at Berkeley I can't exactly
> >say
> > > > that I am very happy. I mean sure I can go to lectures, buy books,
> >sit
> >in
> > > > cafes trying to spark up some theory discussion here and there which
> > > > often result in failure. I don't know do you guys see what I am
> >getting
> > > > at.
> > > > Maybe what I am trying to say is this, that theory needs to be taken
> >out
> > > > of the university context. What about our own projects? Why are their
> >not
> > > > more artist colonies? why can't we situate our reading in a context
> > > > outside of our professional academic career aspirations? Why are
> >there
> >so
> > > > few reading groups advocating "postmodern vertigo"? its easy for
> >Marxists
> > > to
> > > > complain about anarchists or post modernists to complain about
> >modernists
> > > > and and, but in the end we are responsible for our " theory
> >subculture"
> >to
> > > > see that it more than just the idealization of a few big names on some
> > > > unversities some where. Maybe I would be more interest in a discussion
> >of
> > > > our situation as "hum drum theory people" just getting by working odds
> > > > jobs here and there, or at least entertaining the question how are we
> > > > going to integrate our theory back round into a non academic corporate
> > > > work environment? In my circles I have seen allot of really motivated
> >and
> > > > energetic people just . . stop talking theory, or reading, kinda
> >loosing
> > > > their critical perspective on things, and I think it is part due of
> >the
> > > fact
> > > > that when one is finished with school at there is not the community
> >there
> > > > to drive you to it and maybe a whole host of other reasons.
> > > >
> > > > with kind regards
> > > >
> > > > Jeremiah
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
I don't understand what it is your getting at when you say that:
"Foucault did not 'apply his theories to prison reform'" Your claim moved
me to look into David Macey the Lives of Foucault. So I have spent some
time rereading, concerning his actions during the his period of prison
activism and time in Tunsia.
1. December 1966 Nation Union of Students strike breaks out against
Destour.
2. "French academic community breach the terms of their contracts, the
second clause of which ruled out any political activity or interference in
internal Tunsian affairs." (Macey)
3. 1968 "US president Humbert Humphrey visits Tunsia, US embassies are
attacked"
Foucault's activism is summed up so:
"the bitter taste left in his mouth by his experiences in the PCE was
being replaced by a real sense of excitement, The Marxism of the Students,
grouped mainly around a journal entitled Perspectives, was not
particularly sophisticate, and veered somewhat unsteadily from the
Trotskesy to Maoism ( the communist party itself had long been effectivley
marginalized, and had be completely banned in 1966): It was, however,
passionate, very concrete, and far removed from the mumbled political
discourses and quarrels over the ownership of concepts that Foucault had
heard in Paris" (Macey 204)
"Foucualt describes the events the events to Duccio Trombadori: 'strikes,
lectures boycotts and arrests continued throughout the year. The police
entered the university attacking the students, throwing them into jail. I
was to some extent respected by the local authorities, and that allowed me
easily to accomplish a series of actions. " (Macey 204)
Foucault overestimated the degree to which the respect of the authorities
would protect him, and the situation was rapidly becoming dangerous. At
one point, he allowed a Roneo machine used for printing anti-governement
leaflets to be concealed in his garden, despite the fact that he realised
he was under police surveillance. Daneil Defert, in the meantime, was
taking major risks by smuggling messages to Tunisians in Paris after his
regular visits to Foucault, sometimes concealing them in socks to avoid
discovery. "(Macey 205)
The definite warning came, the tactic was a familiar one. A boy with whom
Foucault had spent the night asked to be driven home. In a narrow lane,
Foucalts car was forced to halt, and he recieved a savage beating- Defert
describes him as having been tortured. "(Macey 205)
In the chapter "INTOLERABLE". Macey states something every similiar to
what your above mentioned qoute. "Foucault himself not to promote reforms,
but to gather and disseminate information about the prison system."
And as one reads further it turns he Foucault appears to have circulated
questionnaire to all envolved in the legal institution, as a gesture
against traditional notion of reform stemming out the 17th century
At this time in 1968 Foucault also political climate of prison activism
with Satre among others with often resulted in long prison sentences and
rioting on the part of the french activist community of which Foucault was
leading figure.
" Street demonstrations were not the only form of soldarity action to be
undertaken: An intitial hunger strike a the Sorbonne was followed by the
occupation of the Chapelle Saint Bernard by eleven militants form Secours
Rouge, Father Bernard, the priest in charge insisted that the chapel had
been occupied against his will but also acknowledged the hunger strikers
right to sanctuary, The chapel became the site of permanent political
meeting and strikers received a stream of celebrity visitors, including
Maurice Clavel, Simone Signoret, Yves Montand, and Foucalt, who begged
them to to end the strike before it was to late. "(260)
And here is Foucaults words,
"the situation in the prisons is intolerable, Prisoners are being treated
like dogs. The few rights they do have are not being respected. We want
to bring this scandal to light. Recent events have alerted public opinion
and the press to the way in which people are being sent to prisons
nowadays, and to the life that awaits them once they are inside: but we do
not want the movement to decline or pass in to oblivion. We must see to it
that real changes take place, and in order to do that we intend to wage a
long campaign.
I think that Foucault political side has been underscored in part because
his books were not always easily situated with a field of knowledge that
we normally accociate with politics, although in History of Sexuality he
says a number of every poltical things about Bio-power and the whole of
the courts etc. Foucault never performed his political actions from a
sense of political praxis stemming from a certain definable ideology, but
instead remained near to each situation as it came up. Ethics and opinion,
two Hellenic notions of political motivation, remained in the foreground.
Although I hate the world postmodern , I might say this could be a
postmodern political stance. In short, I know allots of differing
ideologies, but I do not need them to attempt political change or take
part in some "action" like the anti-globalism protests we have recently
experienced. Maybe I just have feeling, an opinion about the whole thing.
Maybe I feel it a ethical duty as a citizen and not a Marxian "world
historical calling" or a given law of our neo-liberal political science
departments. One thing remains clear, it is a great injustice to Foucault
to say that because he had no political ideology that he was not
political.
Best Wishes,
Jeremiah
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Catherine Mills wrote:
> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:42:37 GMT
> From: Catherine Mills <cat_mills@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: what about us
>
> Sean
>
> The suggestion that postmodernism needs a manifesto reminds me of Lacan's
> comments to a bunch of 'revolutionary' students that ' you are looking for a
> master. You will get one'. (or something like that). A manifesto is
> precisely what 'post-modernism' does not need and cannot have. And Foucault
> did not 'apply his theories to prison reform'. Such a move is in direct
> contradiction to why he was involved in these politics - the point of the
> GIP was to allow prisoners to speak for themselves. Please let's not 'apply
> theory' to politics - particularly regarding Foucault (and Butler for that
> matter), Nothing could be more sterile - or contra the impulse of their
> work.
>
> Catherine
>
>
> >From: Sean Guillory <guillory01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: what about us
> >Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:41:49 -0700
> >
> >I've thought about this a lot also because I see aspects of Foucault's,
> >Butler's et al. theories that should and need to be a part of a radical
> >social movement. When I do mention these theories of social activists they
> >either give me blank stare or write it off as inapplicable theory. I know
> >that Foucault was active in prison reform (though I don't know the details
> >of his activism). Does anyone know if/how well he applied his theories to
> >those causes? Perhaps, dare I say it, post-modernism/post whatever needs a
> >manifesto?
> >
> >Sean
> >Sean Guillory
> >guillory01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >AIM: seanguill, ICQ: 75192809
> >PO Box 1312
> >Claremont, CA 91711-1312
> >Vote Socialist! www.votesocialist.org
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Jeremiah. More should be done to impliment the theories
> >which
> > > are too often only expounded within the closed framework of lists such
> >as
> > > this. At least for myself I feel that I am not doing enough to effect
> >the
> > > world within which I exist. Too much time is spent debating the best
> >path
> >or
> > > action. Jeremiah's post reminds me of the line from Yeats' poem "The
> >best
> > > lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".
> >But
> > > the real question is how to effect the changes we seek.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeremiah Luna" <jeremiah.luna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Foucault" <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 7:20 AM
> > > Subject: what about us
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have this to say, It seems to me that our current debate between
> >Lynne
> > > > Cheney's views and Foucault4s theory are fruitful to a certain degree.
> > > > Between Cheney, Nussbaum, the Nation and Butler we as Foucaultian or
> > > > intellectuals of some sort naturally withdrawn into our own click, our
> > > > faction of leftist-intellecutal force. But the debate between the
> >"post
> > > > structuralist left" represented by Foucault and the Nation is maybe
> > > > important for a minute or too, but in the larger scope world political
> > > > events it is beside the point, since the "left" as a whole with all of
> >its
> > > > factions composes an extreme minority with almost no influence over
> >the
> > > > events of our day. And it seems to me to keep defining ourselves
> >"against"
> > > > this or that is a typical gesture of group identification and
> > > > construction,
> > > > which in the end produces yet another "sub culture" pushing for it
> > > > particular view as opposed to 100 of others while missing the bigger
> > > > challenges faces our era and generation.
> > > >
> > > > therefore I ask the question what about us
> >"pspseudo-intellectuals" -just
> > > > in for the hype- possessing no the academic skills to be professionals
> > > > within the context of the university as a highly competitive
> >capitalist
> > > > "knowledge institutions". Where does our reading and education
> > > > influence our daily life as citizens with our larger society? We all
> >have
> > > > the tendency to identify with the opinions and positions put forward
> >by
> > > Butler
> > > > and Spivak as alternative to the Nation and god forbid Cheney or
> > > > NutTree, but when I stop to think about what we really have for "real
> > > > intellectual community" in Tuebingen or at Berkeley I can't exactly
> >say
> > > > that I am very happy. I mean sure I can go to lectures, buy books,
> >sit
> >in
> > > > cafes trying to spark up some theory discussion here and there which
> > > > often result in failure. I don't know do you guys see what I am
> >getting
> > > > at.
> > > > Maybe what I am trying to say is this, that theory needs to be taken
> >out
> > > > of the university context. What about our own projects? Why are their
> >not
> > > > more artist colonies? why can't we situate our reading in a context
> > > > outside of our professional academic career aspirations? Why are
> >there
> >so
> > > > few reading groups advocating "postmodern vertigo"? its easy for
> >Marxists
> > > to
> > > > complain about anarchists or post modernists to complain about
> >modernists
> > > > and and, but in the end we are responsible for our " theory
> >subculture"
> >to
> > > > see that it more than just the idealization of a few big names on some
> > > > unversities some where. Maybe I would be more interest in a discussion
> >of
> > > > our situation as "hum drum theory people" just getting by working odds
> > > > jobs here and there, or at least entertaining the question how are we
> > > > going to integrate our theory back round into a non academic corporate
> > > > work environment? In my circles I have seen allot of really motivated
> >and
> > > > energetic people just . . stop talking theory, or reading, kinda
> >loosing
> > > > their critical perspective on things, and I think it is part due of
> >the
> > > fact
> > > > that when one is finished with school at there is not the community
> >there
> > > > to drive you to it and maybe a whole host of other reasons.
> > > >
> > > > with kind regards
> > > >
> > > > Jeremiah
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>