--part1_f2.19c779cf.29e59b42_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
See also Foucault's position on the necessity of public illegalities in
"Discipline and Punish," which I fear is the most relevent commentary on the
issue of drugs and government.
joe brennan
In a message dated 04/10/2002 8:46:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hirosophy@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I don't know any Foucault's writings on drug use. But, I just wanted to make
>
> preliminary comments on the concept of the state: Foucault or
> poststructuralists would not conceptualize the state as a univocal
> entity--the state is fragmented, consisting in multiple sites of
> contestation. And I think this poststructuralist insight is _empirically_
> very useful. While I don't know anything about the Australian state(s) with
>
> regard to drug use, I guess it may well be multi-vocal and multi-layered.
>
> Lynne Haney's 1996 American Sociological Review article, "Homeboys, Babies,
>
> Men in Suits: The State and the Reproduction of Male Dominance," provides a
>
> cogent analysis of the US welfare "state" from a poststructuralist
> perspective. (Her analysis is based on ethnography of the two state
> institutions in California.) Haney shows how the welfare "state" is in fact
>
> "fragmented and layered, with various sites of control and resistance"
> (Haney:773); "homeboys," "babies," and "men in suits" are sites of
> multi-layered struggles between welfare clients and state officials. I
> heard
> that Haney made no reference to Foucault in her article because she was
> afraid that her article would be rejected by ASR if she mentioned Foucault.
>
> But, if we read her ASR article, we can immediately see that her thesis is
> "[power relations] are not univocal; they define innumerable points of
> confrontation, focuses of instability, each of which has its own risks of
> conflict, of struggles, and of at lear temporary inversion of the power
> relations" (Foucault, Discipline and Punish:27).
>
> Anyway, my two cents here: the state's policy regulating drug use would not
>
> be uniformal or univocal.
>
> Hiro
>
--part1_f2.19c779cf.29e59b42_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>See also Foucault's position on the necessity of public illegalities in "Discipline and Punish," which I fear is the most relevent commentary on the issue of drugs and government.<BR>
<BR>
joe brennan<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 04/10/2002 8:46:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hirosophy@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I don't know any Foucault's writings on drug use. But, I just wanted to make <BR>
preliminary comments on the concept of the state: Foucault or <BR>
poststructuralists would not conceptualize the state as a univocal <BR>
entity--the state is fragmented, consisting in multiple sites of <BR>
contestation. And I think this poststructuralist insight is _empirically_ <BR>
very useful. While I don't know anything about the Australian state(s) with <BR>
regard to drug use, I guess it may well be multi-vocal and multi-layered.<BR>
<BR>
Lynne Haney's 1996 American Sociological Review article, "Homeboys, Babies, <BR>
Men in Suits: The State and the Reproduction of Male Dominance," provides a <BR>
cogent analysis of the US welfare "state" from a poststructuralist <BR>
perspective. (Her analysis is based on ethnography of the two state <BR>
institutions in California.) Haney shows how the welfare "state" is in fact <BR>
"fragmented and layered, with various sites of control and resistance" <BR>
(Haney:773); "homeboys," "babies," and "men in suits" are sites of <BR>
multi-layered struggles between welfare clients and state officials. I heard <BR>
that Haney made no reference to Foucault in her article because she was <BR>
afraid that her article would be rejected by ASR if she mentioned Foucault. <BR>
But, if we read her ASR article, we can immediately see that her thesis is <BR>
"[power relations] are not univocal; they define innumerable points of <BR>
confrontation, focuses of instability, each of which has its own risks of <BR>
conflict, of struggles, and of at lear temporary inversion of the power <BR>
relations" (Foucault, Discipline and Punish:27).<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, my two cents here: the state's policy regulating drug use would not <BR>
be uniformal or univocal.<BR>
<BR>
Hiro<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_f2.19c779cf.29e59b42_boundary--