>Foucault argues that his theory of power affirms human agency because (and
>I'm not going to word this well because I got little sleep last night)
>power
>makes people act in ways they otherwise wouldn't have (which implies some
>degree of human volition). It's important to remember that power ALWAYS
>produces resistance. The question isn't whether to resist, but HOW.
This is typical of Foucault (and you'll have to excuse me, ive drunk too
much red wine and am a bit pissed). The resistance to power is notoriously
undertheorised in F's work, primarily because he wishes to avoid any kind of
normative commitment i.e. how can we resist if we do not possess any kind of
idea of freedom, injustice, etc etc (just fill the blanks yourself). Of
course, F collapsed into an impotent and limpid liberalism of the self with
his work on the "ethics of the self" in his later work. His later work can
only be described as a petit bourgeois individualism centered on self
improvement and individualised ethical relfection. All well and good for
those who can afford the luxury.
How do we resist then? throughout F's work there is an (undeclared) left
wing commitment to resistance....its a shame he never specified any kind of
vision.
>Similarly, Foucault's critique of subjectivity seems to be more pertinent
>to
>the question of HOW we constitute ourselves as subjects, rather than
>WHETHER
>we constitute ourselves as subjects.
The notion of HOW implies a degree of agency in subjective constituion...do
we choose subject positionality, is it thrust upon us. The two obviously
lead in very different directions.
Apologies for typo's etc but i im too tired to spell check...
Doug.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.