Re: Intro.

Well, personally I think that "using" Foucault
involves taking what analysis you want from Foucault's
writings and applying that analysis or deconstruction
of myths to whatever struggle you happen to be engaged
in.
I had a problem with Foucault's habits of being
non-to-specific when analyzing institutions, but I
think he clarifies his writings often enough to allow
us to assert that his writings in DP are
prison-specific, but also allow us to view a process
that creates the institutions we are familiar with
today, or at least to trace the involvement of ideal
forms of punishment into the institutions of today.
Like he says, if his analysis of the prison sounds
familiar in another institution, then perhaps there's
a reason for that. If it can't, then there is probably
a reason for that too.

Questions? Comments? Reply!
-Greg
--- Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Your formulations are precise, but what you make is
> a
> ascertion:"institutional 'forms' are embedded in
> (historical) systems of knowledge and power?". An
> ascertion is not negative attitude towards what it
> ascerts. What Foucault makes is such ascertions,
> that
> is what i meant by "mere historical description". I
> guess You dont whant to say to the man, who posed
> his
> qouestion, that Foucault has negative attitude
> towards
> the shelters for homeless? He meant a complex of
> historical research, followed by generalizations(in
> this formule im not too sure). But what realy was
> that, what F. made? Was it
> archeological/genealogical
> research, or both research with generalizations?
> That
> is a problem to me : How we should work with F.
> writings? Should we search for generaliztions of the
> historical material, or somethinelse, which i cant
> figure out it is?
>
> Jivko
> - that it is one and
> > >
> > would it be incorrect to say that the 'negativity'
> > inherent to Foucault's geneological project
> derives
> > from the process of historicizing and
> > de-mythologicizing social institutions?
> >
> > Would one be far off the mark in interpreting this
> > process as a way of de-essentializing the object/s
> > of enquiry in such a way as to show that
> > institutional 'forms' are embedded in (historical)
> > systems of knowledge and power? - that it is one
> and
> > the same force which leads to the generation of
> > languages of expression (discourse) and, on the
> > other hand, determines systems of monitoring and
> > control? - that institutions are invested with
> > interests of both liberation and repression?
> >
> > Wouldn't describing Foucault's geneological
> project
> > simply as 'an investigation of the history of a
> > practice' or 'a mere historical description of
> > practices' go directly against the thrust of his
> > project: ie to show that what portrays itself as
> > 'innocent' curiosity is another form of
> > power-as-monitoring, that knowledge cannot be
> > separated from the subject who attains it, that
> the
> > perspective one has the privilege to gaze from is
> > intrinsically linked to the privilages
> appropriated
> > by the gaze?
> >
> > Wouldn't one be assimilating Foucault with all
> those
> > and all that from which he wanted to distance
> > himself, if one were to neutralise his
> 'negativity',
> > or pessimism, by calling his analyses 'objective
> > historical investigations/descriptions'?
> >
> >
> > caldon
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Partial thread listing: