Chris and Trent,
I agree with both of you that the death of Man refers to a subjectivity that
arose (or at least reached its fruition) in Europe under humanism, a
subjectivity I choose to designate witha capital S. My more tenuous (but
probably not original) assumptions are that this Subjectivity had its roots
in Socratic philosophy and ended with Nietzche. Foucault does say "God and
man died a common death." ("Nietzche, Geneaolgy, History" I believe.
I also think it is possible to resist the dominant discourse. Foucault does
it. My question is how, without reverting back to the Great Men of history
explanation.
>From: Trent Hamann <thhamann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Subjectivity
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:11:44 -0400
>
>I'm not sure I agree with your premisses here.
>
>Foucault never argues for the end of subjectivity. All of his interest in
>ethics, technologies of the self, and an aesthetics of existence is a
>consideration of what kinds of creative work may be done within the
>supposed limitations of specific subject formations.
>
>Subjectivity is not a transhistorical or metaphysically fixed "thing" so
>much as a site and process of local formation that greatly determines how
>individuals act, think, speak, etc. "Man" is the product of a historically
>and culturally unique set of processes of subjectivation that emerge in
>modern Europe, perhaps most prominently under the labels of "Enlightenment"
>and "Humanism" (with all of the specific practices and discourses they have
>deployed). It is a complex often self contradictory historical formation
>that arose gradually and is also likely to come to be replaced by something
>else. (Perhaps it already has?)
>
>Resistance is possible by first of all becoming critically aware of those
>limitations that are historically and culturally conditioned and imposed
>through forms of governance yet appear to be permanent, natural, or fixed
>in some other way (e.g., "sexuality"). One key to seeing how this may be
>possible is by recognizing that much of the work of subjectivation is
>performed more or less freely by individuals upon themselves (what Foucault
>calls "ethics" and studies as "technologies of the self").
>
>Trent
>
>On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 10:34 AM, John Patrick wrote:
>
>>If Foucault argues for the end of Subjectivity (the death of Man) and that
>>resistance to the dominant discourse or regime of truth does not exist,
>>where does that leave Foucault?
>>
>>Is Foucault a Subject? Is his work a successful challenge to the dominant
>>discourse of the age?
>>
>>I think the answer to both questions is yes, which pardoxically undermines
>>his arguments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
I agree with both of you that the death of Man refers to a subjectivity that
arose (or at least reached its fruition) in Europe under humanism, a
subjectivity I choose to designate witha capital S. My more tenuous (but
probably not original) assumptions are that this Subjectivity had its roots
in Socratic philosophy and ended with Nietzche. Foucault does say "God and
man died a common death." ("Nietzche, Geneaolgy, History" I believe.
I also think it is possible to resist the dominant discourse. Foucault does
it. My question is how, without reverting back to the Great Men of history
explanation.
>From: Trent Hamann <thhamann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Subjectivity
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:11:44 -0400
>
>I'm not sure I agree with your premisses here.
>
>Foucault never argues for the end of subjectivity. All of his interest in
>ethics, technologies of the self, and an aesthetics of existence is a
>consideration of what kinds of creative work may be done within the
>supposed limitations of specific subject formations.
>
>Subjectivity is not a transhistorical or metaphysically fixed "thing" so
>much as a site and process of local formation that greatly determines how
>individuals act, think, speak, etc. "Man" is the product of a historically
>and culturally unique set of processes of subjectivation that emerge in
>modern Europe, perhaps most prominently under the labels of "Enlightenment"
>and "Humanism" (with all of the specific practices and discourses they have
>deployed). It is a complex often self contradictory historical formation
>that arose gradually and is also likely to come to be replaced by something
>else. (Perhaps it already has?)
>
>Resistance is possible by first of all becoming critically aware of those
>limitations that are historically and culturally conditioned and imposed
>through forms of governance yet appear to be permanent, natural, or fixed
>in some other way (e.g., "sexuality"). One key to seeing how this may be
>possible is by recognizing that much of the work of subjectivation is
>performed more or less freely by individuals upon themselves (what Foucault
>calls "ethics" and studies as "technologies of the self").
>
>Trent
>
>On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 10:34 AM, John Patrick wrote:
>
>>If Foucault argues for the end of Subjectivity (the death of Man) and that
>>resistance to the dominant discourse or regime of truth does not exist,
>>where does that leave Foucault?
>>
>>Is Foucault a Subject? Is his work a successful challenge to the dominant
>>discourse of the age?
>>
>>I think the answer to both questions is yes, which pardoxically undermines
>>his arguments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx