--Apple-Mail-2--1003254686
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
John,
I think you're making an important point that Foucault himself makes,
and that distinguishes him in certain ways from Nietzsche. There are
certainly aspects of modern subjectivity (which includes "The Subject"
-- an ideal which perhaps has never fully been embodied), that can be
traced back to pre-modern and ancient times. For example the various
practices of self-reflection that eventually come to produce a deep
interiority in Christian confession and psychoanalysis. Nietzsche
overlooks the fact Christian practices of asceticism made use of many
of the same techniques that the Greeks used. The practices remain the
same, but the social meaning, individual telos, types of truth invested
in and produced by those practices, and the types of power relations in
which they are entwined all go through radical changes. What once was
a kind of "aesthetics of existence" undertaken for the sake of creating
a beautiful life later became an inquisitorial method informed by a
suspicion of bodily desire, with the aim of routing out sin and
ensuring obedience to the specific moral codes established by the
Church.
So, yes, the roots of modern Subjectivity can be traced back to
Socrates (and this by the way is how I think Plato has almost always
been read -- at the cost of ignoring much of the ambiguity and irony in
the dialogues), but only with the kinds of genealogical qualifications
that Foucault insists upon. There are no "pure" origins (as you
realize from reading "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History").
The question of how resistance to dominant discourses happens is maybe
best addressed by looking at the myriad of different ways in which it
already has happened. I think this is because the kinds of
transgressions it involves are always very specific, local, and
individual. Maybe it's almost impossible to describe in any kind of
general sense. In "What Is Critique" Foucault discusses a number of
historical figures who engaged in critique, a practice that he
identifies in his pithy way as an ethos of "not wanting to be governed
quite so much." He also discusses "the Dandy" found in Baudelaire, a
character who embodies the modern ethos of ironically claiming the
present as one's own (the conditions of one's being) and resisting it
by refusing, transgressing, and even playing with the various norms
that are given to us as absolutes. For myself, one of the best books
that really gets into a specific analysis of these kinds of resistant
practices in contemporary life is David M. Halperin's Saint Foucault.
Perhaps it's an unfortunate title if we are concerned about not having
to always rely on the "Great Men" of history, but I think Halperin
explains in a very personal way, the great importance he has found in
Foucault. It brilliantly touches on the real connections between
subjectivation, truth, power, and the practices of the self and social
tactics that individuals have engaged in to create changes in each of
those domains.
Trent
On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 12:42 PM, John Patrick wrote:
> 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
>
--Apple-Mail-2--1003254686
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=US-ASCII
John,
I think you're making an important point that Foucault himself makes,
and that distinguishes him in certain ways from Nietzsche. There are
certainly aspects of modern subjectivity (which includes "The Subject"
-- an ideal which perhaps has never fully been embodied), that can be
traced back to pre-modern and ancient times. For example the various
practices of self-reflection that eventually come to produce a deep
interiority in Christian confession and psychoanalysis. Nietzsche
overlooks the fact Christian practices of asceticism made use of many
of the same techniques that the Greeks used. The practices remain the
same, but the social meaning, individual telos, types of truth
invested in and produced by those practices, and the types of power
relations in which they are entwined all go through radical changes.
What once was a kind of "aesthetics of existence" undertaken for the
sake of creating a beautiful life later became an inquisitorial method
informed by a suspicion of bodily desire, with the aim of routing out
sin and ensuring obedience to the specific moral codes established by
the Church.
So, yes, the roots of modern Subjectivity can be traced back to
Socrates (and this by the way is how I think Plato has almost always
been read -- at the cost of ignoring much of the ambiguity and irony
in the dialogues), but only with the kinds of genealogical
qualifications that Foucault insists upon. There are no "pure"
origins (as you realize from reading "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History").
The question of how resistance to dominant discourses happens is maybe
best addressed by looking at the myriad of different ways in which it
already has happened. I think this is because the kinds of
transgressions it involves are always very specific, local, and
individual. Maybe it's almost impossible to describe in any kind of
general sense. In "What Is Critique" Foucault discusses a number of
historical figures who engaged in critique, a practice that he
identifies in his pithy way as an ethos of "not wanting to be governed
quite so much." He also discusses "the Dandy" found in Baudelaire, a
character who embodies the modern ethos of ironically claiming the
present as one's own (the conditions of one's being)
<italic>and</italic> resisting it by refusing, transgressing, and even
playing with the various norms that are given to us as absolutes. For
myself, one of the best books that really gets into a specific
analysis of these kinds of resistant practices in contemporary life is
David M. Halperin's <italic>Saint Foucault</italic>. Perhaps it's an
unfortunate title if we are concerned about not having to always rely
on the "Great Men" of history, but I think Halperin explains in a very
personal way, the great importance he has found in Foucault. It
brilliantly touches on the real connections between subjectivation,
truth, power, and the practices of the self and social tactics that
individuals have engaged in to create changes in each of those
domains.
Trent
On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 12:42 PM, John Patrick wrote:
<excerpt>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.
<excerpt>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:
<excerpt>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
</excerpt></excerpt>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
</excerpt>
--Apple-Mail-2--1003254686--