<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Arianna, Phil, Nathan and others following</P>
<P>thank you for recent post. I am sorry for late response. I am bit swamped these days.</P>
<P>Another hindrance to our discussion is that I do not have sufficient material at my disposal here so my understanding mainly would be based on Foucault's DP and Hs vol.1 and collections of interview such as PPC and PK.</P>
<P>With these cautious notes, I would like to state frankly that I consider the notion of post disciplinary society such as propagated by Hart and Negri in their recent works or by Deleuze in his Foucault (1988) as basic misunderstanding of Foucault's analysis (Hart and Negri note that the concept of post disciplinary society is not explicitly articulated by Foucault himself). I will explain briefly why. </P>
<P>Foucault's analysis of disciplinary society is closely related to capitalism. In fact disciplinary society is a capitalist society nothing else. Capitalism requires the maximisation of utility and docility simultaneously. This is what relates disciplines to capitalism. "Disciplines" are concerned with body "as a machine: its disciplining, the optimisation of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into system of efficient and the economic controls . . . ." (HS vol i p. 139). Thus disciplinary society is a society, which is based on this dual dictum of simultaneous increase in usefulness and docility of each of its members. </P>
<P>However the demand of increase in usefulness, utility and production requires that the docility 'function' should be employed with great caution and circumspection. This leads us to consider Foucault's insight that capitalism manages freedom (primarily) through freedom and not through repression. This is the basic insight of Foucault's rejection of so called 'repressive hypothesis'. Also relevant here is the notion of self-discipline, which according to Foucault is the basic mode of discipline in a mature capitalist society.</P>
<P>If we have this in mind we shall not be surprised by lifting of prohibitions which were employed in the earlier phases of capitalism and we shall not construe them as transition to any post disciplinary society (cf. PPC pp. 262-263).</P>
<P>This is not to deny the existence of repression but to deny prohibition and forbiddance as the (basic) mode of repression in capitalism. The operation of power in modern capitalism "is not ensured by right but by technique, not by law but by normalisation, not by punishment but by control, methods that are employed on all levels and in forms that go beyond the state and its apparatus" (HS vol. i. p. 89).</P>
<P>In the capitalist system "interdiction, the refusal, the prohibition, far from being essential forms of power, are only its limits, power in its frustrated or extreme forms. The relations of power are, above all productive" (PPC p. 118). Capitalism as 'a political ordering of life' developed 'not through an enslavement of others but through an affirmation of self' (HS p. 123). Thus the evolution of capitalism consisted in "the self affirmation of one class rather than the enslavement of another: a defence, a protection, a strengthening and exaltation that were eventually extended to others - at the cost of different transformations - as a means of social control and political subjugation" (ibid.) </P>
<P>The reason for the centrality of 'production' rather than 'protection' and even 'protection' mainly through production is the fact that for its continued development and sustenance capitalism needs the maximum enhancement of the 'utility' of each and every member without any exclusion otherwise its progress would be stymied. The meaning of governance in a capitalist system is to govern in such a way that the 'utility' of each and every member is maximised and converge towards the singularity of accumulation for the sake of accumulation and that this system is protected from any disruptions or distractions. This is government through 'affirmation' in contrast to government through 'enslavement'. Thus in a system like this constraints, repression are to be used sparingly and exceptionally and even when used they must be masked. In modern capitalist societies 'power is tolerable only on the condition that it masks a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms' (ibid. p. 86). Hence the conception of negative liberty as absence of power: "power as a pure limit set on freedom is, at least in our society, the general form of its acceptability" (ibid.) i.e. its legitimacy.</P>
<P>Thus in my humble opinion the relative openness of mature capitalist society should not be construed as transition to purported post disciplinary society but maturation of disciplinary society itself. </P>
<P>So what is the crisis of disciplinary society in this context. My hunch is that it is the crisis of capitalist governance. The crisis is emerging because according to Foucault people are questioning (starting to question) the way they are 'lead' and the 'reasons' on the basis of which they are 'lead' in modern capitalist societies. Foucault defines 'government' as "the set of institutions and practices by which people are 'lead' from administration to education, etc" (RM p. 176). The crisis of disciplinary society is the crisis of capitalist government in this broader sense. </P>
<P>What has become unbearable and intolerable is the form of power that purports to define people's life, individual and social. Capitalist governmental rationality and its access to and its authority over the individual and social life is being challenged. This is happening because the form of power which sustains such a governmental rationality i.e. bio/disciplinary power is increasingly becoming unacceptable and illegitimate in modern capitalist societies. Modern single-issue movements and struggles should be seen in this context. They are not just single-issue movements but they have general import too and that general import is that they are (or they have potential to become) struggles against the hegemony of bio/disciplinary power.<BR>Whether any such dissatisfaction exists and whether modern single issue movements have a potential to develop into anti capitalist movements is still to be seen, examined, tested, analysed. </P>
<P>I hope this makes some sense. </P>
<P>regards<BR>ali<BR><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>----Original Message Follows----
<DIV></DIV>From: Arianna <A.BOVE@xxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Subject: disciplinary society in crisis
<DIV></DIV>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:26:57 +0100
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>dear list,
<DIV></DIV>thanks for the recent debates on the unconscious of knowledge, savoir, and
<DIV></DIV>the event. there's still so much to be said about Foucault's ideas and I
<DIV></DIV>think that open minded non competitive exchanges are the most fruitful way
<DIV></DIV>to go about advancing our understanding of them.
<DIV></DIV>I am interested in the idea of post-disciplinary society, and to what extent
<DIV></DIV>the disciplinary practices and institutions Foucault describes can today be
<DIV></DIV>said to have matured into something else.
<DIV></DIV>I am having trouble finding a particular essay where Foucault apparently
<DIV></DIV>mentions something on these lines. I wonder if any of you has read it, knows
<DIV></DIV>if it can be found anywhere in english (or the french version on the web),
<DIV></DIV>or simply wishes to discuss its contents. The details are:
<DIV></DIV>M. Foucault: La societe disciplinaire en crise. DE vol III text 231
<DIV></DIV>p532-533. do you know if it can be found in the third volume of the Rabinow
<DIV></DIV>collection on Power?
<DIV></DIV>thanks,
<DIV></DIV>Arianna
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>
<P>Arianna, Phil, Nathan and others following</P>
<P>thank you for recent post. I am sorry for late response. I am bit swamped these days.</P>
<P>Another hindrance to our discussion is that I do not have sufficient material at my disposal here so my understanding mainly would be based on Foucault's DP and Hs vol.1 and collections of interview such as PPC and PK.</P>
<P>With these cautious notes, I would like to state frankly that I consider the notion of post disciplinary society such as propagated by Hart and Negri in their recent works or by Deleuze in his Foucault (1988) as basic misunderstanding of Foucault's analysis (Hart and Negri note that the concept of post disciplinary society is not explicitly articulated by Foucault himself). I will explain briefly why. </P>
<P>Foucault's analysis of disciplinary society is closely related to capitalism. In fact disciplinary society is a capitalist society nothing else. Capitalism requires the maximisation of utility and docility simultaneously. This is what relates disciplines to capitalism. "Disciplines" are concerned with body "as a machine: its disciplining, the optimisation of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into system of efficient and the economic controls . . . ." (HS vol i p. 139). Thus disciplinary society is a society, which is based on this dual dictum of simultaneous increase in usefulness and docility of each of its members. </P>
<P>However the demand of increase in usefulness, utility and production requires that the docility 'function' should be employed with great caution and circumspection. This leads us to consider Foucault's insight that capitalism manages freedom (primarily) through freedom and not through repression. This is the basic insight of Foucault's rejection of so called 'repressive hypothesis'. Also relevant here is the notion of self-discipline, which according to Foucault is the basic mode of discipline in a mature capitalist society.</P>
<P>If we have this in mind we shall not be surprised by lifting of prohibitions which were employed in the earlier phases of capitalism and we shall not construe them as transition to any post disciplinary society (cf. PPC pp. 262-263).</P>
<P>This is not to deny the existence of repression but to deny prohibition and forbiddance as the (basic) mode of repression in capitalism. The operation of power in modern capitalism "is not ensured by right but by technique, not by law but by normalisation, not by punishment but by control, methods that are employed on all levels and in forms that go beyond the state and its apparatus" (HS vol. i. p. 89).</P>
<P>In the capitalist system "interdiction, the refusal, the prohibition, far from being essential forms of power, are only its limits, power in its frustrated or extreme forms. The relations of power are, above all productive" (PPC p. 118). Capitalism as 'a political ordering of life' developed 'not through an enslavement of others but through an affirmation of self' (HS p. 123). Thus the evolution of capitalism consisted in "the self affirmation of one class rather than the enslavement of another: a defence, a protection, a strengthening and exaltation that were eventually extended to others - at the cost of different transformations - as a means of social control and political subjugation" (ibid.) </P>
<P>The reason for the centrality of 'production' rather than 'protection' and even 'protection' mainly through production is the fact that for its continued development and sustenance capitalism needs the maximum enhancement of the 'utility' of each and every member without any exclusion otherwise its progress would be stymied. The meaning of governance in a capitalist system is to govern in such a way that the 'utility' of each and every member is maximised and converge towards the singularity of accumulation for the sake of accumulation and that this system is protected from any disruptions or distractions. This is government through 'affirmation' in contrast to government through 'enslavement'. Thus in a system like this constraints, repression are to be used sparingly and exceptionally and even when used they must be masked. In modern capitalist societies 'power is tolerable only on the condition that it masks a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms' (ibid. p. 86). Hence the conception of negative liberty as absence of power: "power as a pure limit set on freedom is, at least in our society, the general form of its acceptability" (ibid.) i.e. its legitimacy.</P>
<P>Thus in my humble opinion the relative openness of mature capitalist society should not be construed as transition to purported post disciplinary society but maturation of disciplinary society itself. </P>
<P>So what is the crisis of disciplinary society in this context. My hunch is that it is the crisis of capitalist governance. The crisis is emerging because according to Foucault people are questioning (starting to question) the way they are 'lead' and the 'reasons' on the basis of which they are 'lead' in modern capitalist societies. Foucault defines 'government' as "the set of institutions and practices by which people are 'lead' from administration to education, etc" (RM p. 176). The crisis of disciplinary society is the crisis of capitalist government in this broader sense. </P>
<P>What has become unbearable and intolerable is the form of power that purports to define people's life, individual and social. Capitalist governmental rationality and its access to and its authority over the individual and social life is being challenged. This is happening because the form of power which sustains such a governmental rationality i.e. bio/disciplinary power is increasingly becoming unacceptable and illegitimate in modern capitalist societies. Modern single-issue movements and struggles should be seen in this context. They are not just single-issue movements but they have general import too and that general import is that they are (or they have potential to become) struggles against the hegemony of bio/disciplinary power.<BR>Whether any such dissatisfaction exists and whether modern single issue movements have a potential to develop into anti capitalist movements is still to be seen, examined, tested, analysed. </P>
<P>I hope this makes some sense. </P>
<P>regards<BR>ali<BR><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>----Original Message Follows----
<DIV></DIV>From: Arianna <A.BOVE@xxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Subject: disciplinary society in crisis
<DIV></DIV>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:26:57 +0100
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>dear list,
<DIV></DIV>thanks for the recent debates on the unconscious of knowledge, savoir, and
<DIV></DIV>the event. there's still so much to be said about Foucault's ideas and I
<DIV></DIV>think that open minded non competitive exchanges are the most fruitful way
<DIV></DIV>to go about advancing our understanding of them.
<DIV></DIV>I am interested in the idea of post-disciplinary society, and to what extent
<DIV></DIV>the disciplinary practices and institutions Foucault describes can today be
<DIV></DIV>said to have matured into something else.
<DIV></DIV>I am having trouble finding a particular essay where Foucault apparently
<DIV></DIV>mentions something on these lines. I wonder if any of you has read it, knows
<DIV></DIV>if it can be found anywhere in english (or the french version on the web),
<DIV></DIV>or simply wishes to discuss its contents. The details are:
<DIV></DIV>M. Foucault: La societe disciplinaire en crise. DE vol III text 231
<DIV></DIV>p532-533. do you know if it can be found in the third volume of the Rabinow
<DIV></DIV>collection on Power?
<DIV></DIV>thanks,
<DIV></DIV>Arianna
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>