Indeed, his whole conceptualisation of power relies on the possibility for the
"subjects" (for lack of another appropriate word) to act on the actions of
those who exercice power on them! His 'analytique' was one (it became
especially clear in his later writings) of liberal government, that is of a
mode of governement that conceives of its 'subjects' as capable and legitimate
to participate in it through their engagement in the governing of self and/or
others. That is not what one would call a denial of agency. Of the subject,
probably - and it is debatable. I would say though that this does not exlude
the impression, reading Foucault, that "it doesn't matter who act" and
therefore that his analysis are affect-less, focusing rather on impersonal
rationalities of government that somewhat lack their 'human' incorporation.
But it is not clear to me what this implies nor how one can resolve the
ambiguity.
Francois Gagnon
Selon suannschafer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >Foucault's critics as a routine confuse his rejection of subject
> >with the rejection of agency. It is not the same thing to dney
> >agency and subject. One can believe in agency without believing in
> >the notion of subject as understood in Cartesian and Enlightenment
> >tradtion.
>
> That's interesting. Can you elaborate? Thanks in advance!
>
François Gagnon
Étudiant au Doctorat
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
(514)343-6111 poste 1464
"subjects" (for lack of another appropriate word) to act on the actions of
those who exercice power on them! His 'analytique' was one (it became
especially clear in his later writings) of liberal government, that is of a
mode of governement that conceives of its 'subjects' as capable and legitimate
to participate in it through their engagement in the governing of self and/or
others. That is not what one would call a denial of agency. Of the subject,
probably - and it is debatable. I would say though that this does not exlude
the impression, reading Foucault, that "it doesn't matter who act" and
therefore that his analysis are affect-less, focusing rather on impersonal
rationalities of government that somewhat lack their 'human' incorporation.
But it is not clear to me what this implies nor how one can resolve the
ambiguity.
Francois Gagnon
Selon suannschafer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >Foucault's critics as a routine confuse his rejection of subject
> >with the rejection of agency. It is not the same thing to dney
> >agency and subject. One can believe in agency without believing in
> >the notion of subject as understood in Cartesian and Enlightenment
> >tradtion.
>
> That's interesting. Can you elaborate? Thanks in advance!
>
François Gagnon
Étudiant au Doctorat
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
(514)343-6111 poste 1464