>PS does anyone know if I can still mail in if I am not subscribed?
>This list is flooding my email.
Of the 109 mails sent to this list in January, 56 have come in the last 3
days, since Bryan's mail on Power and Bio-Ethics. Bryan has clearly sparked
some debate - which is a good thing.
Which brings me to the second point. Can I suggest that people go back and
read the Method chapter of The History of Sexuality Vol I again. Slowly. It
seems to me that a lot of the stuff being thrown about here is really based
on a pretty superficial reading of Foucault, reinforced by some sloppy
critiques in the secondary literature. I know some people think that
Foucault was trying to clear things up in later interviews on power, etc.
but it strikes me that this chapter has the essence of this theory, and that
it's far richer and more complicated than people give it credit for. It's
not the only place of course, but it's a good start. Foucault might very
well be wrong on power/resistance, but not for the superficial reasons being
thrown around here.
Stuart
>This list is flooding my email.
Of the 109 mails sent to this list in January, 56 have come in the last 3
days, since Bryan's mail on Power and Bio-Ethics. Bryan has clearly sparked
some debate - which is a good thing.
Which brings me to the second point. Can I suggest that people go back and
read the Method chapter of The History of Sexuality Vol I again. Slowly. It
seems to me that a lot of the stuff being thrown about here is really based
on a pretty superficial reading of Foucault, reinforced by some sloppy
critiques in the secondary literature. I know some people think that
Foucault was trying to clear things up in later interviews on power, etc.
but it strikes me that this chapter has the essence of this theory, and that
it's far richer and more complicated than people give it credit for. It's
not the only place of course, but it's a good start. Foucault might very
well be wrong on power/resistance, but not for the superficial reasons being
thrown around here.
Stuart