Thank you James for this stimulating (non-drivel) comment. I agree with you, it is
very interesting to see how people manage the way they think the list should or
should not be. What would MF do? A good question indeed for a Foucault e-list.
Perhaps an analysis in terms of 'technologies of government' as you imply? The
techniques deployed toward the 'government of others' on this list, in my
observation, could include silliness (i.e. humour), sarcasm, innuendo, bullying,
reasoned argument, requests, rule making and so on.
I wonder what techniques people are employing to govern themselves in the process?
The intersection of technologies of power and of subjectivity, that is what
constitutes 'government', according to Foucault. WHat subjectivities are fashioned in
the interests of governing the list, and in response to what 'regimes of truth'.
I hope this discussion can continue in this vein.
Jill
Jill.Molan@xxxxxxxxxx
James Parr wrote:
> What Would Foucault Do? I actually find this exchange regarding our
> "self-governance," so to speak, to be pretty stimulating--
>
> Within the relative freedom and anonymity of cyberspace, and working within
> something of a "frame" or apparatus of this list-serv, people (myself included)
> seem to come up with various rules of decorum, which are interestingly based in
> terms of form (short, funny responses are not "serious" enough) and content
> (responses based on personal anecdote, humor, ostensible puerility)-- not that
> these things are ever inseperable.
>
> An internalization of authority, the perfection of non-direct modes of controlling
> and limiting our behaviour? That sounds a little too dramatic, but certainly it's
> to the point here-- (thinking of the second half of Discipline and Punish,
> generally). But the trajectory of this current debate does seem to lend itself to
> this sort of thinking-- in all sincerity, what do we think he would make of this
> discussion, if that's not too imaginative/hypothetical?
>
> Regards,
>
> James
>
> James Parr
> Department of English
> University of Virginia
>
> malgosia askanas wrote:
>
> > > THe problem stems from the way the list serv is constructed.
> > > IF it were constructed sot that a reply went to the sender
> > > and NOT the listserv, then these personal epithets
> > > would not be sent to unwanted readers.
> >
> > So, this is the best you can come up with? I am sorry to say that no, the
> > problem does _not_ stem from "the way the listserv is constructed".
> > The listserv is not meant to be a vehicle for the kind of scenario that
> > Jeremiah declared himself to be uninterested in, where somebody asks for
> > a reference, and then people respond to him or her in private whispering the
> > answer into her or his ear. It is meant to be a vehicle for public
> > discussion, and it is _public_ exchange that it means to serve and facilitate.
> > The fact that this public discussion most frequently tends towards "drivel"
> > is not the fault of the stup, but of the users of that setup.
> >
> > -m
very interesting to see how people manage the way they think the list should or
should not be. What would MF do? A good question indeed for a Foucault e-list.
Perhaps an analysis in terms of 'technologies of government' as you imply? The
techniques deployed toward the 'government of others' on this list, in my
observation, could include silliness (i.e. humour), sarcasm, innuendo, bullying,
reasoned argument, requests, rule making and so on.
I wonder what techniques people are employing to govern themselves in the process?
The intersection of technologies of power and of subjectivity, that is what
constitutes 'government', according to Foucault. WHat subjectivities are fashioned in
the interests of governing the list, and in response to what 'regimes of truth'.
I hope this discussion can continue in this vein.
Jill
Jill.Molan@xxxxxxxxxx
James Parr wrote:
> What Would Foucault Do? I actually find this exchange regarding our
> "self-governance," so to speak, to be pretty stimulating--
>
> Within the relative freedom and anonymity of cyberspace, and working within
> something of a "frame" or apparatus of this list-serv, people (myself included)
> seem to come up with various rules of decorum, which are interestingly based in
> terms of form (short, funny responses are not "serious" enough) and content
> (responses based on personal anecdote, humor, ostensible puerility)-- not that
> these things are ever inseperable.
>
> An internalization of authority, the perfection of non-direct modes of controlling
> and limiting our behaviour? That sounds a little too dramatic, but certainly it's
> to the point here-- (thinking of the second half of Discipline and Punish,
> generally). But the trajectory of this current debate does seem to lend itself to
> this sort of thinking-- in all sincerity, what do we think he would make of this
> discussion, if that's not too imaginative/hypothetical?
>
> Regards,
>
> James
>
> James Parr
> Department of English
> University of Virginia
>
> malgosia askanas wrote:
>
> > > THe problem stems from the way the list serv is constructed.
> > > IF it were constructed sot that a reply went to the sender
> > > and NOT the listserv, then these personal epithets
> > > would not be sent to unwanted readers.
> >
> > So, this is the best you can come up with? I am sorry to say that no, the
> > problem does _not_ stem from "the way the listserv is constructed".
> > The listserv is not meant to be a vehicle for the kind of scenario that
> > Jeremiah declared himself to be uninterested in, where somebody asks for
> > a reference, and then people respond to him or her in private whispering the
> > answer into her or his ear. It is meant to be a vehicle for public
> > discussion, and it is _public_ exchange that it means to serve and facilitate.
> > The fact that this public discussion most frequently tends towards "drivel"
> > is not the fault of the stup, but of the users of that setup.
> >
> > -m