form then
> read Il faut defendre la societe - not the course
> summary, but the full
> course, which is currently available in French.
> Race, war, nationality,
> nationalism, revolution, constitution... it's all
> there, and much much more.
More broadly, until every one of Foucault's lecture
> courses is published,
> and until whoever turns out to be his Max Brod
> unearths everyone of of his
> laundry lists, how can any of us give a final
> opinion on what was, or what
> was not, among his problems? And even then?
>
Unfortunately there are many texts of foucault which
are like this - everyday a new collection appears,
than go search it, find it and read it. But why should
see in the biopower point on the nationalism? why not
apply it to the western society, where nationalism is
a dirty word? What is your problem with the
nationalism when the world tryies to be as one? i was
discussed about how the manipulating western media
presented the war in kossovo as a nationalism, when it
was a war between mafia groups. And because of this
they gave the balkans in the hands of the albanian
mafia. If you have any idea of the albanian mafia, you
must know what i am talking about. I think there much
more importenant issues to diefine about foucault than
nationalism - like his notion of dispositif, serie,
ensemble, genealogy, archeology,panopticism.
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Not only have these exchanges been increasingly
> offensive, they have also
> been often poorly informed.
>
> The question as to whether Foucault is a philosopher
> is, of course,
> discussed in much of the literature. The point is
> presumably that he was not
> _just_ a philosopher, and that the kind of
> philosopher he was is not the
> sort many would recognise as such - i.e. look at his
> reception in Anglophone
> philosophy departments. For me, that's why he's so
> interesting.
>
> The Foucault dictionary given as a weblink, whilst
> perhaps useful as an
> initial step, is hardly indicative of an advanced
> knowledge of his work.
> There are some very crude generalisations and
> misleading suggestions. The
> entries on bio-power are, for example, extremely
> limited in their scope and
> understanding. Perhaps that helps explain some of
> the other comments flying
> around.
>
> >Let me most of all say, that Michel Foucault has
> >never, absolutely never dealed with any questions
> of
> >nation, nationalism and so on ,these were never
> among
> >his problems. never.
>
> I think Nathan is correct to suggest that biopower
> is precisely about these
> kinds of issues, but if you need it spelled out in
> really explicit form then
> read Il faut defendre la societe - not the course
> summary, but the full
> course, which is currently available in French.
> Race, war, nationality,
> nationalism, revolution, constitution... it's all
> there, and much much more.
> A much diluted form is found in the last chapter of
> the first volume of the
> History of Sexuality, but only in the
> contemporaneous course do we find the
> much fuller explication.
>
> More broadly, until every one of Foucault's lecture
> courses is published,
> and until whoever turns out to be his Max Brod
> unearths everyone of of his
> laundry lists, how can any of us give a final
> opinion on what was, or what
> was not, among his problems? And even then?
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> read Il faut defendre la societe - not the course
> summary, but the full
> course, which is currently available in French.
> Race, war, nationality,
> nationalism, revolution, constitution... it's all
> there, and much much more.
More broadly, until every one of Foucault's lecture
> courses is published,
> and until whoever turns out to be his Max Brod
> unearths everyone of of his
> laundry lists, how can any of us give a final
> opinion on what was, or what
> was not, among his problems? And even then?
>
Unfortunately there are many texts of foucault which
are like this - everyday a new collection appears,
than go search it, find it and read it. But why should
see in the biopower point on the nationalism? why not
apply it to the western society, where nationalism is
a dirty word? What is your problem with the
nationalism when the world tryies to be as one? i was
discussed about how the manipulating western media
presented the war in kossovo as a nationalism, when it
was a war between mafia groups. And because of this
they gave the balkans in the hands of the albanian
mafia. If you have any idea of the albanian mafia, you
must know what i am talking about. I think there much
more importenant issues to diefine about foucault than
nationalism - like his notion of dispositif, serie,
ensemble, genealogy, archeology,panopticism.
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Not only have these exchanges been increasingly
> offensive, they have also
> been often poorly informed.
>
> The question as to whether Foucault is a philosopher
> is, of course,
> discussed in much of the literature. The point is
> presumably that he was not
> _just_ a philosopher, and that the kind of
> philosopher he was is not the
> sort many would recognise as such - i.e. look at his
> reception in Anglophone
> philosophy departments. For me, that's why he's so
> interesting.
>
> The Foucault dictionary given as a weblink, whilst
> perhaps useful as an
> initial step, is hardly indicative of an advanced
> knowledge of his work.
> There are some very crude generalisations and
> misleading suggestions. The
> entries on bio-power are, for example, extremely
> limited in their scope and
> understanding. Perhaps that helps explain some of
> the other comments flying
> around.
>
> >Let me most of all say, that Michel Foucault has
> >never, absolutely never dealed with any questions
> of
> >nation, nationalism and so on ,these were never
> among
> >his problems. never.
>
> I think Nathan is correct to suggest that biopower
> is precisely about these
> kinds of issues, but if you need it spelled out in
> really explicit form then
> read Il faut defendre la societe - not the course
> summary, but the full
> course, which is currently available in French.
> Race, war, nationality,
> nationalism, revolution, constitution... it's all
> there, and much much more.
> A much diluted form is found in the last chapter of
> the first volume of the
> History of Sexuality, but only in the
> contemporaneous course do we find the
> much fuller explication.
>
> More broadly, until every one of Foucault's lecture
> courses is published,
> and until whoever turns out to be his Max Brod
> unearths everyone of of his
> laundry lists, how can any of us give a final
> opinion on what was, or what
> was not, among his problems? And even then?
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/