I quoted in my last post Burchell's statement, "It is in the name of our
governed existence as individual living beings, in the name of our health,
of the development of our capabilities, of our ethnicity, of our gender, of
our forms of insertion into social and economic life, of our age, of our
environment, of particular risks we may face and so on, that we both revile
and invoke the power of the state" (Foucault Effect, 145).
The essay basically ends right after that. In what light do you think he is
trying to cast this? Favorable? Dispassionate?
~Nate
--
"Thought is no longer theoretical. As soon as it functions it
offends or reconciles, attracts or repels, breaks, dissociates,
unites, or re-unites; it cannot help but liberate and enslave.
Even before prescribing, suggesting a future, saying what must
be done, even before exhorting or merely sounding an alarm,
thought, at the level of its existence, in its very dawning, is
in itself an action--a perilous act."
-Michel Foucault
governed existence as individual living beings, in the name of our health,
of the development of our capabilities, of our ethnicity, of our gender, of
our forms of insertion into social and economic life, of our age, of our
environment, of particular risks we may face and so on, that we both revile
and invoke the power of the state" (Foucault Effect, 145).
The essay basically ends right after that. In what light do you think he is
trying to cast this? Favorable? Dispassionate?
~Nate
--
"Thought is no longer theoretical. As soon as it functions it
offends or reconciles, attracts or repels, breaks, dissociates,
unites, or re-unites; it cannot help but liberate and enslave.
Even before prescribing, suggesting a future, saying what must
be done, even before exhorting or merely sounding an alarm,
thought, at the level of its existence, in its very dawning, is
in itself an action--a perilous act."
-Michel Foucault