My piont was just one: How did You manage to see
nationalism in Israel? The poor Israelians are trying
to make a safe palce for living- for them and for
theyr children. What You want of those people? Because
of your notion of nationalsm they must spread again
all over the world and expirience another holocaust?
Would they ruin the houses of the arabs, if the arabs
did not insisted all the time to chase away the
israelians from their teritory? If the arabs accepted
to live in peace with israel, then than wouldnt
expirience that "ethnic cleansing". But no, they have
to proclaim djihad all the time. Israel is just
defending itd people, like it must do. Thats all.
Zhivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Aside from the exaggeration, and that English
> language readers of Foucault
> are being resold largely the same material in new
> collections, without much
> of the extremely interesting and valuable French
> material being made
> available, this was precisely my point. There is a
> lecture course of
> Foucault's that deals, in detail, with what you
> stated, quite emphatically,
> he _never_ dealt with.
>
> But why should
> > see in the biopower point on the nationalism?
>
> Because Foucault did?
>
> In another post you suggested
>
> >> If you can't see how biopower relates to
> >> nationalism, I don't know what to
> >> tell you.
> >>
> >neither do i, sorry. I cant see such thing,
> honestly.
> >The nationalism was a question foucault never cared
> >about...
>
> That just doesn't chime with the reading in Il faut
> defendre la societe,
> which is why I recommended it!
>
> > why not
> > apply it to the western society, where nationalism
> is
> > a dirty word?
>
> Foucault uses his understanding of the war of races
> - derived from
> Boulainviller - to understand France (Francs, Gauls,
> Romans) and Britain
> (Normans and Saxons). He discusses, amongst other
> things, variant readings
> of the French Revolution. He then discusses how this
> changes through
> mathematical techniques, and techniques of order (a
> politicised rereading of
> The Order of Things) and relates it to the term
> bio-power, and then
> discusses National Socialism and socialism more
> generally in terms of
> nationalism and racism.
>
> 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.
>
> This was not my point. I don't pretend to have an
> encyclopedic knowledge of
> these complicated struggles, and that's why I don't
> make pronouncements on
> them. At its best, this list gives food for thought
> and speculation. My
> point was to contest your reading of Foucault, which
> was simply inaccurate.
>
> I think there much
> > more importenant issues to diefine about foucault
> than
> > nationalism - like his notion of dispositif,
> serie,
> > ensemble, genealogy, archeology,panopticism.
>
> That might be true, but that's hardly what you were
> saying before. There is
> an extensive literature on these issues you note -
> of varying quality of
> course, and that's not in anyway to foreclose
> discussion and debate about
> these terms. For my part, i've done most of my
> thinking through of those
> issues, and i've written extensively about them, and
> so I find the newly
> published lecture courses extremely interesting in
> raising some different,
> though related, issues. The notions of nationalism,
> bio-power, war of races,
> etc. - these seem to me to be thought through only
> in summary fashion. For
> instance, Foucault wrote/delivered an entire course
> called the Birth of
> Biopolitics, which is bound to throw most of the
> current work on that topic
> off balance, and then there are the extensive
> commentaries on the notion of
> 'governmentality', when the text of that name in The
> Foucault Effect was but
> a single lecture in the Security, Territory,
> Population course.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
nationalism in Israel? The poor Israelians are trying
to make a safe palce for living- for them and for
theyr children. What You want of those people? Because
of your notion of nationalsm they must spread again
all over the world and expirience another holocaust?
Would they ruin the houses of the arabs, if the arabs
did not insisted all the time to chase away the
israelians from their teritory? If the arabs accepted
to live in peace with israel, then than wouldnt
expirience that "ethnic cleansing". But no, they have
to proclaim djihad all the time. Israel is just
defending itd people, like it must do. Thats all.
Zhivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Aside from the exaggeration, and that English
> language readers of Foucault
> are being resold largely the same material in new
> collections, without much
> of the extremely interesting and valuable French
> material being made
> available, this was precisely my point. There is a
> lecture course of
> Foucault's that deals, in detail, with what you
> stated, quite emphatically,
> he _never_ dealt with.
>
> But why should
> > see in the biopower point on the nationalism?
>
> Because Foucault did?
>
> In another post you suggested
>
> >> If you can't see how biopower relates to
> >> nationalism, I don't know what to
> >> tell you.
> >>
> >neither do i, sorry. I cant see such thing,
> honestly.
> >The nationalism was a question foucault never cared
> >about...
>
> That just doesn't chime with the reading in Il faut
> defendre la societe,
> which is why I recommended it!
>
> > why not
> > apply it to the western society, where nationalism
> is
> > a dirty word?
>
> Foucault uses his understanding of the war of races
> - derived from
> Boulainviller - to understand France (Francs, Gauls,
> Romans) and Britain
> (Normans and Saxons). He discusses, amongst other
> things, variant readings
> of the French Revolution. He then discusses how this
> changes through
> mathematical techniques, and techniques of order (a
> politicised rereading of
> The Order of Things) and relates it to the term
> bio-power, and then
> discusses National Socialism and socialism more
> generally in terms of
> nationalism and racism.
>
> 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.
>
> This was not my point. I don't pretend to have an
> encyclopedic knowledge of
> these complicated struggles, and that's why I don't
> make pronouncements on
> them. At its best, this list gives food for thought
> and speculation. My
> point was to contest your reading of Foucault, which
> was simply inaccurate.
>
> I think there much
> > more importenant issues to diefine about foucault
> than
> > nationalism - like his notion of dispositif,
> serie,
> > ensemble, genealogy, archeology,panopticism.
>
> That might be true, but that's hardly what you were
> saying before. There is
> an extensive literature on these issues you note -
> of varying quality of
> course, and that's not in anyway to foreclose
> discussion and debate about
> these terms. For my part, i've done most of my
> thinking through of those
> issues, and i've written extensively about them, and
> so I find the newly
> published lecture courses extremely interesting in
> raising some different,
> though related, issues. The notions of nationalism,
> bio-power, war of races,
> etc. - these seem to me to be thought through only
> in summary fashion. For
> instance, Foucault wrote/delivered an entire course
> called the Birth of
> Biopolitics, which is bound to throw most of the
> current work on that topic
> off balance, and then there are the extensive
> commentaries on the notion of
> 'governmentality', when the text of that name in The
> Foucault Effect was but
> a single lecture in the Security, Territory,
> Population course.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/